Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Home Accidents (Electrical Faults)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what figures are available for the number of home accidents arising from electrical faults; and if she will consult the electricity consultative councils with the aim of reducing these accident figures.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): The only figures available are those relating to fires in dwellings or to deaths from electrocution arising from electrical equipment or installations which I gave in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for

Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) on 15th December 1975.
The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1975, which come into force this year, will help to prevent home accidents by prohibiting the sale of unsafe electrical equipment. I shall be pleased to consider views which the electricity consultative councils may express at any time on electrical safety matters, including these Regulations.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that some of the electricity consultative councils have already expressed concern about the effect of VAT on domestic repairs because it tends to push up prices and so persuades people to carry out their own repairs? The same applies in a case to which I drew his attention recently when there was a high charge for disconnecting a piece of electrical equipment. Would he consult the electricity boards to see whether there can be some reduction in these prices? Could not that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions already.

Mr. Roberts: Could not that lead to a further reduction in accidents?

Mr. Alan Williams: I have asked the nationalised industries consultative councils, ROSPA and the British Standards Institute's consumer advisory body whether they can provide any information to support my hon. Friend's suggestion.


As yet, not a word of evidence has been forthcoming. I have looked at the details of the individual case that my hon. Friend sent to me and I think that in all the circumstances the board behaved quite reasonably in this instance.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Minister consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because clearly the 25 per cent. VAT rate is absurd for services of this kind?

Mr. Alan Williams: In correspondence with hon. Members we have said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to look at any evidence that comes forward. For that reason I have asked those concerned with safety to let me have any evidence that they have.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Hear, hear.

Mr. Alan Williams: I remind the hon. Lady that it was a Conservative Administration which first taxed the servicing of this equipment.

Price Check Scheme

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will publish a list showing which of the items in the Price Check Scheme are of special importance in family expenditure.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): The list of items included in the scheme, covering roughly 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of consumers' expenditure, was placed in the Library on 11th February. The total list is important for family expenditure, although some items are more important than others. My right hon. Friend's object has been to get agreement on the inclusion of such items where, at this stage in the fight against inflation, it is possible for the manufacturer and the retailer to give an undertaking that the price in the shops will not increase by more than 5 per cent. in the next six months.

Mr. Rathbone: In the light of last weekend's events, is the Minister aware of an old French proverb, which goes "Is it not known in history that the mousetrap pursues the mouse?" Is the Price Check Scheme an effective mousetrap, and what is the mouse?

Mr. Maclennan: If the Government are setting any mousetraps, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will blunder into them.

Mr. Mike Thomas: May we return to the realm of reality and precision? Can my hon. Friend give the House some idea of whether the scheme is succeeding? Has it been extended in any way and can he give us some positive comments?

Mr. Maclennan: The scheme is broadly succeeding. An increasingly large number of retailers are not only fully cooperating with the undertaking given by the Retail Consortium but are bringing in new items day by day on which they are prepared to give guarantees on price restraint.

Mr. Rost: What is the scheme costing the taxpayer?

Mr. Maclennan: I dealt with the cost to the taxpayer of the advertising and publicity in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the Minister aware that there seems to be a fair amount of administrative chaos surrounding the scheme? Some people who are not in the scheme have received triangles but some who are in the scheme have not. Is he aware that many shop assistants know nothing about it and that many shops displaying signs have only a tiny proportion of their goods in the scheme? Does he agree that he could save money simply by dropping the great price restraint circus?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is unfortunately aligning himself with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) in her traditional negativism. The scheme covers about 500,000 retail outlets and, naturally, it is bound to have a number of small hiccoughs at the beginning, but it is plain that it is broadly understood. As the scheme is becoming more widely understood, inquiries from the retail trade are now declining.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she has been asked to widen the scope of her advance warning scheme for price restraint.

Mr. Maclennan: The list of items within the Price Check Scheme covers roughly 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of consumers' expenditure, and it also provides for retailers to add items to the list from their own range when they are satisfied they can keep price increases within 5 per cent. for the period of the scheme. We have been pressed from many sides to widen it, but its scope reflects the stage we have reached in the attack on inflation.

Mr. Whitehead: Has my hon. Friend enough information about the Price Check Scheme to consider extending it across a wider range of goods and services? By "goods" I mean, for example, the whole of the textile sector. By "services" I mean the services that will be involved in the expected price rises in public sector industries, increases which make many of our constituents feel that they may soon be paying more for rather less, as in the case of the Post Office.

Mr. Maclennan: I am glad to take this opportunity of drawing to my hon. Friend's attention the undertaking of the British Shoe Corporation to bring into the scheme all its goods except where marked. The coporation has made that decision since the scheme was announced. Marks and Spencer has made an offer which covers a number of lines of clothes not included in the scheme. A considerable extension of the scheme has been offered by voluntary groups in respect of their own brands. This has had the effect of widening the scheme in a large number of smaller, independent outlets. Finally, there has been the offer by the National Hardware Alliance to bring in a number of hardware items of great importance in the home.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Before extending the scheme, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his Department has received any notification of prosecution under the Trade Rescriptions Act relating to the television advertisements for the scheme? The advertisements show a balloon clearly marked as the cost of living, reducing in size. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the cost of living is not coming down and that, although the rate of inflation may be coming down, it has still been higher in this country over the past three months than in almost any other country? Does

the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a highly misleading and dishonest advertisement?

Mr. Maclennan: The advertisement which the hon. Lady has described as highly dishonest was agreed by the Retail Consortium and the CBI. I have no doubt that those bodies will note her words. The advertisement was approved by the IBA. I have received no notification of the sort that the hon. Lady has mentioned.
The House and possibly the country will have noticed how the hon. Lady has sought to hinder every positive proposal. It will have been noted how originally she sought to undermine the scheme by approaching individual manufacturers. It may be fairly said of the hon. Lady that her contribution to the countering of inflation has had as much relevance as a pair of tweezers to the clearing of a forest.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she has made an estimate of items which will have to go up in price by more than they would otherwise have done in order to subsidise those items not increasing by more than 5 per cent. under the Price Check Scheme.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I do not expect cross-subsidisation to be very extensive on any goods. Indeed, in my consultations on the Price Check Scheme, representatives of manufacturing industry have repeatedly emphasised that they have limited scope for it, especially in present market conditions. As for goods of importance to low-income families, the trade associations have asked their members to keep to a minimum any price increases on basic household necessities which it has not been possible to include in the scheme.

Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there will be some cross-subsidisation? Does she agree that basically the Price Check Scheme is a cosmetic exercise which costs the taxpayer too much money and of which it would be better to dispose as soon as possible?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have accepted that there may be a limited amount of cross-subsidisation, but I mean limited. That is what the manufacturers and retailers have informed me.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the whole purpose of the scheme. The CBI and the Retail Consortium felt able to commit themselves to a scheme which limited them to a 5 per cent. increase for the coming six months because they had faith that the counter-inflation policy would hold. They were able to anticipate falls in costs, falls which they now believe will grow as a result of the £6 scheme holding.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Why has my right hon. Friend not included in the scheme a basic allocation of electricity units and perhaps a lower grade of petrol and paraffin?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My hon. Friend, who is very much concerned in this matter, will know that one of the difficulties about the inclusion of electricity units was the pass-through of raw material prices, which made it impossible for the electricity industry, unlike the gas industry, to commit itself to a 5 per cent. maximum increase up to next August.
My hon. Friend will be interested to know that paraffin and petrol are both included at wholesale level, but they do not represent any part of the 19 per cent. to 20 per cent. coverage, and we could not include them at the retail price level because of the rate of price cutting that is going on now. But there is no doubt that those purchasing petrol will get the benefit of the wholesale holding of base prices. A scheme with a lower grade was attempted previously.

Mr. Norman Lamont: What effect will the scheme have on the retail price index? How can the Government hope to monitor the scheme if they will not tell us what the effect will be?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman simply does not understand the scheme. It was not chosen for items which appear in the retail price index. There are some items in the scheme which are not factors for the purpose of the retail price index. Where there is a range of goods—such as a range of

shoes, a range of clothing or a range of textiles—as distinct from the situation of the category of goods included in the retail price index, one cannot give a precise indication of the effect on the retail price index. But this matter is being monitored, because the Retail Consortium has asked its members to keep notices of what the prices were on the base date and therefore it will be open to consumers to inquire how prices have moved.

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is satisfied that goods included in the Price Check Scheme represent value for money.

Mr. Maclennan: I am satisfied that the goods which represented good value for money before the scheme was introduced still represent good value for money. The Price Check Scheme adds the additional factor of the assurance of a measure of price stability over a six-month period.

Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many manufacturers held back on price increases in 1975 and have necessarily had to implement one in the early part of 1976, which means that they are precluded from the Price Check Scheme? Will he therefore confirm that neither his Department nor the Price Commission will give any impression that brands within the Price Check Scheme are necessarily better value for money than those outside it?

Mr. Maclennan: Nothing I have said, or the CBI and the Retail Consortium have said in launching the scheme, was designed to give that impression. The purpose of the scheme is to give reassurance to the consumer that the price of those items which are within it will not increase by more than 5 per cent. in the next six months.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us how it is possible for anyone to discover which goods covered by the scheme have gone up less than they would have done had the scheme not been in existence?

Mr. Maclennan: Shopkeepers taking part in the scheme were invited to keep lists of prices applying on the base date to which they could refer if asked by members of the public.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) have both raised valid points. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my criticism of the Price Check Scheme has been reinforced by three major newspapers, which have described it as "Prices Con", "Great Prices Bamboozle", and "Whitehall Farce"? Is he further aware that several large department stores have not participated in the scheme? Is he suggesting that they are co-saboteurs of mine and, if so, can he please find some evidence of that? Can the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same discipline must apply to the Front Benches. That was three supplementary questions.

Mr. Maclennan: If there is any misunderstanding about the purpose and working of the Price Check Scheme, I attribute to the hon. Lady a considerable part of the blame, although I am bound to say that she has failed in that as in so many other things. It is not the case that three major retailers have withdrawn from the scheme. That is another misrepresentation which the hon. Lady has taken this opportunity to make.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she estimates that the Price Check Scheme will have any effect on the Index of Retail Prices; and, if so, what effect.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: What is slowing down the RPI is the deceleration of costs, as the pay limit continues to take effect. There can be no mistake that it is slowing down markedly: it increased by 15½ per cent. in the six months before the £6 pay limit came into effect on 1st August last year: in the most recent six months it has increased by 6½ per cent. The Price Check Scheme takes advantage of this deceleration to secure for the consumer positive assurances from the manufacturer, backed by the retail trade, that the price of the goods and services in the scheme will be held within the limit for the next six months.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Lady for that very helpful and full reply. However, does she agree that her price

scheme is very much of a charade and that the massive increases in the prices of nationalised industries—electricity, post, and so on—will more than outweigh the small benefits which the consumers will receive from her scheme?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Opposition find themselves in their usual difficulty. One of their more distinguished Front Bench Members attempted during 1972–73 to get a selective price scheme off the ground, and he told the House in October 1973—I do not have the Hansard column number with me—that he was unable to get agreement on a sufficient basis to go ahead with such a scheme. The present scheme is also a selective price restraint scheme with the difference that it is in being. The concept is the same. I do not believe that it was cosmetic then: I know that it is not cosmetic now.

Mr. Skinner: What is the point of having elaborate machinery for the Price Check Scheme in order, as my right hon. Friend says, to decelerate the rate of price increases if every time that happens we have Common Market agreements which accelerate other price increases and thereby push up the retail price index?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I know my hon. Friend's feelings about this matter. He will shortly have an opportunity to question my right hon. Friend who has the full details of the settlement. I do not have the full details and therefore cannot answer his question.

Mr. Adley: We all like and admire the Secretary of State, but does she realise that it becomes increasingly difficult to defend her in the face of suggestions from retailers in my constituency concerning her little orange triangles which would be uncomfortable and possibly dangerous?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: They are not actually orange—they are red—though that may be what the Opposition are trying to do to them should the scheme by any chance succeed. The latest results of the monitoring of the scheme by the Retail Consortium show that 19 of the 21 major retail chains are taking part in the scheme. Well before the scheme started, the other two announced their intention not to do so. The monitoring


also indicates that no one has withdrawn from the scheme, despite what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has been saying, and also that three-fifths of the co-operative units have agreed to take part in the scheme and are working it. It is the belief of the CWS that the rest are working it as well. The important vote of confidence which I want—the willingness of industry to carry out the scheme and those engaged in it to extend it steadily—has been given and runs contrary to the hon. Gentleman's experience which, no doubt, comes from talking to a handful of friends in his constituency.

Food Subsidies

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what the effect will be on the cost of living of the phasing out of food subsidies as envisaged by the Government's cutback in subsidies during 1976–77, 1977–78 and afterwards.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on the effect of the forthcoming reduction in subsidies on the price of the main food items.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on which foods she proposes to reduce food subsidies in 1976–77; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I estimate that subsidy reductions could increase the RPI by about 0·3 per cent. by the end of the financial year 1976–77, but it is impossible to be precise about the figure or to give reliable forecasts for future years. Apart from the butter subsidy, which is to be reviewed in the light of the price settlement in Brussels, we have no plans at present for reducing any subsidies before July 1976.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently pointed out what we have been saying for a long time—that many people on low-wage incomes are taxed whereas those with similar incomes from national assistance are not taxed? Would it not be better to cut back on these subsidies now and to reduce taxa-

tion on low incomes so that people may spend their money in their own way than to wait until 1976, 1977 or 1978 to do it?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that the greatest proportion of the benefit from subsidies goes to those who do not normally pay taxation—namely, old-age pensioners whose only income is the pension. Therefore, the figure is a proportionate improvement of four to one for old-age pensioners getting nothing but the State pension compared with the family on average income. It is only because the Government believe that they are winning the battle against inflation and that the level of inflation and food prices will be much lower later in the year and next year that it is possible to contemplate phasing out subsidies.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as a result of the weekend decision in Brussels there will be a sharp increase in prices not only of dairy produce, but of meat? In that situation, does she agree that, far from cutting food subsidies, she should use her strength to maintain them and, indeed, to increase them, especially in the interests of the lower income groups?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My hon. Friend will appreciate that part of his question is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have already indicated that we shall be reviewing subsidies in the light of the settlements affecting butter and cheese.

Mr. Marten: I should like to put the same question in a different way in the hope that the Minister will answer it. How can she possibly condone the cutting out of subsidies, which I think is right, with the present price review in Brussels, which will put up the prices of many major foods at a time when, on the Common Market's own admission, most major foods are cheaper outside than inside the EEC? Is it not her job to protect the consumer?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. If he believes, as I do, that my job is to protect the consumer, he should have consistently supported me earlier on food subsidies, but he has not done so.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: May I urge my right hon. Friend when she reviews subsidies to do her best to convince the Government that if they take off the subsidies prices will rise, that there will be a spate of wage demands, and that the country will be in a much worse state than it is at present?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I should point out that as long ago as November 1974, in reply to a Question in the House, I made it clear that the purpose of food subsidies was to deal with a temporary rapid increase in food prices and that the Government did not take the view that subsidies were necessarily a permanent feature of society.

Rail Fares

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she next intends to meet the transport users' consultative committees.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what plans she has to meet representatives of the transport users' committees in the near future to discuss the proposed increases in British Rail and London Transport passenger fares.

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what recent meetings she has had with the transport users' consultative committee with regard to increased rail fares.

Mr. Alan Williams: I shall be writing to the Central Transport Consultative Committee, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has published his consultation document on aspects of transport policy, to invite it to discuss it with me.
Under the terms of the Transport Act 1962, the transport consultative committees are not entitled to consider fares. London Transport fare increases are a matter for the Greater London Council, which appoints the London Transport Passengers Committee.

Mr. Lamont: Does the Minister of State agree that, in his capacity as a

Minister in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, he must be concerned with a situation where rail fares have risen by over 80 per cent. in two years and commuter fares are to go up by 17½ per cent. in one year? Will he impress on the Secretary of State that, in a situation where there is no proper competition in city transport and where there is vast overmanning on the railways, the increase in wages can only come through to the consumer in increased fares?

Mr. Alan Williams: I note that the Opposition seem to be lining themselves up behind a programme of cuts for the railways. No doubt that will be noted elsewhere. However, they must still explain whether they prefer price increases or the cuts in public expenditure for which they cry. They cannot have both.

Mr. Dykes: Is the Minister of State aware that, for example, the single Tube fare from Harrow to the centre of London is now 50p compared with 25p two years ago when this Government came into power? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see what thought for the day she has to comfort long-suffering commuters and consumers of Tube journeys who are now having to face insupportable problems? Does he at least agree with the proposition that, in so far as the London ratepayer ratio is lower in inner London Tube journeys, there are more business men travellers and foreign tourists and that in future increases should be proportionately weighted on inner London fares?

Mr. Alan Williams: I have already indicated that the responsibility for London Transport rests with the Greater London Council, not my Department. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must face the fact that the Government have indicated that for the next 12 months they will give a subsidy of about £36 million to help London Transport.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Whatever long-term plans my hon. Friend may have for these consultative councils, in view of recent actions in the Post Office—we have seen the same sort of thing in transport—will he, even in the short term, consider giving these consultative councils more teeth so that they may have some effect on these decisions?

Mr. Alan Wlliams: My hon. Friend is in accord with my own views on this matter. The Department has referred the whole subject of the nationalised industries' consultative councils to the National Consumer Council in the hope of being able to strengthen them. I am sure that the House will be only too happy if they can be strengthened.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman will know that I put down a Question to the Secretary of State asking whether the recent savage increase in commuter fares could be included in the Price Check Scheme and that the Question was transferred. Will he explain why such an important factor in the cost of living for so many people as these swingeing increases cannot be subjected to the same controls as other price increases?

Mr. Alan Williams: The selective price restraint scheme was not intended to be another form of subsidy. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the debates that we have had on the various orders on the Price Code and so on relating to the price restraint scheme from which he will see that it would have been impossible for us to consider including a heavy loss maker within the scheme

Special Advisers

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on what dates and for how long her two special advisers were appointed.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Dr. Joan Mitchell's current appointment dates from 11th October 1974 and Mr. John Lyttle's from 20th November 1974. Their appointments may be terminated at any time.

Mr. Gow: Though it is not saying a great deal, is the right hon. Lady aware that she is one of the better Ministers in this Administration? Will she explain why she needs two special advisers whereas the Secretary of State for Employment has none?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should explain to the hon. Gentleman, taking his compliment in the spirit in which it was offered, that Dr. Mitchell's appointment is part-time and not full-time, and that she will be concerned with certain

economic matters which arise in the Department.

Inflation

Sir George Young: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the most recent year-on-year rate of inflation.

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by what percentage the Retail Price Index has increased since February 1974.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Over the 12 months to 13th January 1976 the General Index of Retail Prices increased by 23·4 per cent. This represents an overall increase of 45·4 per cent. since 19th February 1974.

Sir G. Young: Is the right hon. Lady's ambition to reduce the rate of inflation to 10 per cent. by the end of the year compatible with the Treasury's policy of allowing the pound to sink without trace?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I do not accept that description of the Treasury's policy. In the past six months the all-items index, omitting seasonal items which can distort the index in either direction, has been running at 6·6 per cent. That is an annual rate of 13·6 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will notice that the Government are rapidly approaching the target that they set themselves.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend note that the Opposition have stopped asking for the month-on-month figures now that they are becoming better, and that they now ask for the year-on-year figures? Will my right hon. Friend call upon the mass media to give greater publicity to the month-on-month figures that she has just given?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I suggest that he and my other hon. Friends keep tabling Questions about the month-on-month figures. On all occasions I shall answer by giving the month-on-month and the year-on-year figures, leaving the House to make its own judgment.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the right hon. Lady agree that congratulations about a supposed approach towards targets might be premature when the most important


matter remains the present weakness of the pound, a weakness reflecting that our rate of inflation is still twice that of our major competitors?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No, the hon. Gentleman is out of date. Our rate of inflation is not twice that of our competitors. That is shown by the six-monthly rate that I have given to the House. However, it is still somewhat above that of most of our competitors, and we need to reduce it nearer to those rates. I am not congratulating myself or my Department. I believe that congratulations are owed to the citizens of this country. They have shown a great deal of restraint in their wage demands and in accepting the £6 limit.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the right hon. Lady aware that few congratulations can be offered when after two years of Labour Government prices have risen by over 45 per cent. and when by the end of this summer they will have risen by over 50 per cent.? Is she aware that, whatever happens now, nothing can be done to eradicate that damaging performance and the consequences in hardship and damage to the country? The right hon. Lady will go down in history as having presided over two years of the highest inflation that we have ever known. Is she aware that she is responsible for the consequences and the hardship that will ensue?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It was the hon. Lady's more generous hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who spoke of congratulations, not I, Hansard will show from where the congratulations stemmed. Rather surprisingly, they came from the Opposition.
Inflation does not suddenly happen. There are many circumstances that lead to inflation. The hon. Lady cannot pretend that her own Government's acceptance of the threshold system, and her own Government presiding over a massive rate of inflation, which showed every sign of increasing month by month, had nothing to do with the situation we now have to face. I am bound to say that the country still has a serious target to meet. It will not be met if any of us pretend that we have no responsibility for inflation. The Conservative Administration bears a considerable share of the responsibility.

Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable damage is being done to our economy by imports? Does she further agree that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and many of her colleagues would do a great deal to improve the situation if they stopped driving foreign-made cars?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I must leave the latter part of my hon. Friend's question for hon. Members' consciences. It would help the country in its present difficulties if people chose home-produced goods, when available, as far as possible.

Price Code

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many companies have had to make use of the profit safeguard provisions in the Price Code.

Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission publishes full information about notifications and applications under various profit safeguard provisions of the Price Code in its quarterly reports. It would not be possible to break these figures down between individual companies without disproportionate expense.

Mr. Neubert: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that at the Chequers Conference last November the Government undertook to ensure that industry would earn sufficient profits to spur management to expand and innovate and to generate internal finance on which it could base its investment? With profit levels now down to derisory levels, what actions are the Government taking to honour that undertaking?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the investment relief which the Government introduced. The hon. Gentleman's Government did nothing whatever in the way of introducing such relief. According to the claims made up to the end of November, we have given relief worth £348 million. There is scope under the existing code to rebuild some of the existing margins. I believe that that is as a result of our review of the code in1974

Price Controls (Profits)

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her current estimate of the


effects on the profits of the United Kingdom manufacturing and retailing sectors of price controls in the year 1975–76.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Price Commission figures for the period November 1975 are not yet published. The Commission's latest report says that profit margins of Category 1 manufacturing firms in the third quarter of 1975 were 46·2 per cent. of reference levels, compared with 52·4 per cent. in the third quarter of 1974. For distributors the figures were 45·7 per cent. and 58–8 per cent. The decline in profit margins in 1975 were mainly due to the recession.

Mr. MacGregor: I accept that the very serious decline in profitability and in the rate of return on capital is by no means all due to the Price Code. However, will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that, as and when industry sees the prospect of an economic upturn, fear of a long-term continuation of the Price Code will have a depressing effect on its investment intentions and therefore on expansion? Will she therefore take steps to make clear as soon as possible her long-term intentions towards the continuation of the Price Code?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I recognise that there are problems for industry in looking to long-term return on investment, but the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that in recent discussions in which I took part it was made clear to industry that we would consider very seriously what might be done for investment. I repeat that not all profits invariably go into domestic investment.

Mr. Tim Renton: Does the right hon. Lady accept that profit in United Kingdom manufacturing industry is only a fraction of what it was 20 years ago and that in some areas price controls will have to be lifted if increased investment in private industry within this country is to be achieved?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The point I was trying to make was that it was very important that, where profits go into investment, in our present circumstances that investment should be at home and preferably in manufacturing. I am sure that the House will agree with that. What needs to be done in respect of the Price Code is to reflect that very considerable priority for the country as a whole.

Estate Agencies

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many representations she has received on her consultation document on estate agents.

Mr. Alan Williams: About 200 so far and, despite a formal closing date of 31st January, I am still receiving comments.

Mr. McCrindle: While no doubt the Minister wishes to pay tribute to the honesty of the vast majority of estate agents, can he confirm that the main purpose of any legislation that the Government may choose to introduce would be to protect purchasers of properties against loss of deposits, either through fraud or through the company going out of business? If that is correct, does the Department prefer a system of bonding, or a compulsory contribution to a compensation fund, or perhaps a little of both?

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman is correct—our prime intention is, of course, to ensure the safety of deposits in the event of bankruptcy and also to protect depositors from fraud. The whole purpose of the consultative document is to establish which is the best method to achieve the purpose. The trust account is one possible formula and the guarantee bond is another. We also feel that possibly a central compensation fund could meet both possibilities of fraud and bankruptcy. We shall now consider the replies that we have received, though we still have not received one from the area in which the hon. Gentleman is interested-insurance. At the end of the day, most people accept that there is a need for licensing, and that, too, will be a protection for the consumer.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: My hon. Friend will recall that in the late 1960s there was a scheme whereby local authorities experimentally gave lists of houses for sale in their areas. Will he therefore consider with the Department of the Environment the possibility of reviving and extending that scheme so that there is some serious competition with the operations of estate agents?

Mr. Alan Williams: That is a matter for the Department of the Environment. My rôle is to ensure protection for the


consumer who chooses to go through the normal services of estate agencies. Let me now confirm the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) in his supplementary question. The Government recognise that the vast majority of estate agents act with integrity, but for the individual who loses his deposit there is a massive loss, and therefore we have to see that we extend protection as widely as possible.

Metrication

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what target date she has set for the completion of metrication; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Williams: In common with consumer organisations and much of trade and industry, I should like to see the metrication programme completed as quickly as practicable in the national interest. I do not envisage a single target date, but under the Weights and Measures &c. Bill which was introduced on 2nd March the Government propose to take power enabling them to phase out or limit the use for legal purposes of imperial units.

Mrs. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. How does he intend to allay public disquiet about metrication, which has forced the furnishing trades to abandon metric measures for curtains and carpets? Is my hon. Friend aware that this public mistrust stems from experience of the phenomenal price rises which followed decimalisation, after the initial monitoring of the price rises? Is he satisfied that similar price rises can be avoided after metrication?

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend is quite right to express the concern of many people that conceivably there could be a repetition of what happened with decimalisation. The important distinction between the two is that, whereas decimalisation applied across the whole trading board literally overnight, metrication is moving sector by sector and therefore is more easily monitored. Also, it is subject to the Price Code, and we have the facility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite must bear in mind that their party, when in office, adopted the same policy; it is not as though this were

a Labour Government innovation in which they had no part. We can also use unit pricing where necessary to help to protect the consumer.

Mr. Jessel: Shall we keep the pint?

Mr. Alan Williams: As it is a matter of such great concern to the hon. Gentleman, the answer to his question is "Yes". I have indicated on numerous occasions that I can see no reason why the pint of beer should disappear. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who previously tabled a Question about the dairy industry, is again asking about its prospects, though not in the normal supplementary fashion. The dairy industry has written to the Department—I have only just heard about the letter; I have not seen it yet—asking whether the pint measure can be retained for milk. I see no reason why it should not be retained.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) about the fears of housewives rests on the fact that on the introduction of decimalisation there was often a price levelling upward when there was a broken price? Therefore, will he make it illegal under metrication to level up when a lower price should be fixed?

Mr. Alan Williams: We must take a reasonable view and ensure that there is no profiteering as a result of metrication. We have had assurances from people in all sectors which have gone metric that they will pass on only the extra costs appropriate to the extra size, because in many instances the new unit will be about 10 per cent. bigger than the previous imperial unit.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be madness to apply metric standards to foodstuffs in the shops when prices are rising so quickly? Does the Common Market place any obligation on us to complete the metrication programme by a specified time? If so, what can we do about it?

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative Government which supported the policy of metrication. He left that Government and rejoined them, so plainly he did not regard metrication as a great deterrent to his participation. He is right to pinpoint the fact of "M-Day", which was


accepted by the Conservative Government when they signed the Treaty of Accession. The Conservative Government imposed "M-Day" on this country because they accepted at the outset that goods on shop shelves would have to be in metric units from 1st April 1978 and that the metrication process would have to be completed by the end of 1979. I am having to administer the agreement made by the Conservative Government.

Retail Price Index

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest available monthly rise in the Retail Price Index; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: There was a 1·3 per cent. rise in the General Index of Retail Prices between 9th December 1975 and 13th January 1976. Combined with the year-on-year figure, which has declined for the fifth successive month and now stands at 23·4 per cent., this clearly demonstrates that the Government's anti-inflation policies are succeeding.

Mr. Canavan: Can my right hon. Friend estimate how long working people will be expected to suffer a situation in which prices rise faster than wages? Does she agree that the retail price index will continue to rise as a result of the disastrous Common Market deal made at the weekend which will push up even further the prices of basic foodstuffs?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is perhaps worth pointing out to my hon. Friend that as at January basic hourly wage rates on a year-on-year basis rose by 26·2 per cent. whereas the RPI rose by 23·4 per cent. It is true that the increase in earnings was below the RPI increase because of short-time working and loss of overtime. There is no doubt that if we do not cope with inflation at the rate at which it was running last year—and the Government are convinced that the policy entered into voluntarily by the TUC is a crucial element in doing so—the greatest sufferers will be the poorest people and not those with the bargaining power to resist.

Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Lady answer the question which I put to her

earlier? How can she, as a member of the Cabinet and the Minister for consumer protection, possibly condone the Brussels price review, which will cause prices to increase?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman tries very hard, but that does not arise on this Question.

Consumer Advice

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is taking action to rationalise the consumer advice service to the consumer.

Mr. Alan Williams: While the Government are providing support for new consumer advice centres and to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux movement, the organisation of local provision of consumer advice services is a matter for local authorities.

Mr. Luce: In view of the need to contain public expenditure and to avoid the duplication of resources, does the Minister agree that it is better to concentrate on building up existing services, such as the citizens' advice bureaux, than to create too many consumer advice centres? What action is the hon. Gentleman taking to rationalise the services?

Mr. Alan Williams: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's thesis, because the CABs, which provide a marvellous service to the public over a whole range of need, are able to devote only a relatively small proportion of their services to consumer advice work. The new scheme, which we have just brought forward, making £1·4 million available for new advice centres, will make extra advice and information available to about 10 million people and we regard this as valuable at a time when prices are increasing faster than any of us would wish.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of brief regular programmes on, say, BBC television giving Government advice and information on prices?

Mr. Alan Williams: That goes beyond this proposition. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) seems to object to any advertising on television which is to do with countering inflation.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Madden: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his official engagements for Monday, 8th March 1976.

Mr. Viggers: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his engagements for Monday 8th March 1976.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever): Apart from Question Time, I have no official engagements today.

Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend know that only last week the chairman of Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd. confirmed that my right hon. Friend was one of the Ministers closely involved in the Chrysler agreement? As he has recently had time to purchase an expensive blazer with gold buttons and to play bridge with members of another place, will my right hon. Friend now find time to put on public record his unique contribution to the Chrysler deal, so that all of us may know—?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have stopped the hon. Member before. The Question is about official engagements today.

Mr. Lever: On the subject of Chrysler, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 19th January. If my hon. Friend has not come across that reply, I shall be very happy to furnish him with a copy. As to one of the more amusing and characteristically inaccurate flights of fancy on the front page of the Morning Star, I do not think that is of the direct relevance to my official engagements that you might wish, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Viggers: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time today to interview prospective holders of Government appointments, as presumably he met and knew Sir Richard Dobson before his appointment to British Leyland, even though the responsible Minister did not?

Mr. Lever: My reply related to official engagements. I hope that hon. Members are not under the impression that my

official work for today consists of gratifying the more innocent curiosities of colleagues in the House.

Mr. Lipton: May I return to the subject of my right hon. Friend's official engagements? Has he forgotten that there may be a Division at about 7 o'clock tonight? Will he take part in that?

Mr. Lever: That thought had already occurred to those briefing me, but I came to the conclusion that it could not be accurately described as an official engagement.

Oil Industry (State Participation)

Mr. Canavan: 37. Mr. Canavan asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will now make a further statement about the progress of his negotiations on participation with the oil companies.

Mr. Lever: As I informed the House on 26th February, participation agreements have now been concluded with Gulf and Conoco. Negotiations with other companies are continuing to make progress.

Mr. Canavan: As the publicly-owned National Coal Board was already in equal partnership with Gulf and Conoco in three oilfields, is it not true that in this case my right hon. Friend has been successful in acquiring not 51 per cent. but only about 17⅔ per cent.? Can he explain how on earth the British National Oil Corporation can work successfully unless it has 51 per cent. of the shareholding votes?

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend is quite correct in believing that we already had a substantial public interest before these negotiations started. We have now added to it precisely in accordance with our target—namely, to bring it up to 51 per cent. As to the problem of gaining 51 per cent. of the votes, my hon. Friend must realise that these are syndicated partnerships and no major decision can be taken except with the unanimous consent of all parties. Percentage control of the oil is a matter of great importance and that has been achieved, but these syndicated partnerships work only where it is possible to get unanimity. Otherwise, they are useless and unproductive.

Mr. Hannam: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State


for Energy stated in a speech in the United States that the Government had neither the intention nor the resources to acquire majority participation in North Sea oil companies? So why do the Government continue with the farce of the BNOC?

Mr. Lever: No doubt the hon. Gentleman follows with great zeal and in detail the pronouncements of all my right hon. Friends, including the Secretary of State for Energy. I have not studied the speech to which he refers, but I can assure him that the Secretary of State could not have said that the North Sea oil proceedings were a farce. Neither I nor the oil companies regard them as a farce and they will not prove to be so.

Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend expect any further negotiations in the near future? In carrying out those negotiations, will he bear in mind the urgent need for construction orders for the various platform sites around Scotland?

Mr. Lever: We are pressing forward with the negotiations. There is every reason to believe that we are making healthy progress and will continue to do so. I shall certainly bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend about construction orders.

Mr. Biffen: In the light of the participation deal concluded with Gulf Oil and Conoco, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a perfectly legitimate interpretation to say that it is possible to get 51 per cent. partnership without any impact on equity ownership?

Mr. Lever: No.

Mr. Rost: How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that the negotiations are voluntary when the Secretary of State for Energy has admitted that he will use his patronage to allocate future licences in the North Sea only to those who surrender participation?

Mr. Lever: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that he misunderstands the meaning of the word "voluntary". Very few things in this life are voluntary in the somewhat wide metaphysical sense that it is understood by the hon. Gentleman. By voluntary negotiations, we mean that we have taken no legal powers and do not feel such powers will be necessary.

Mr. Rost: The Government do not need them.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman can either listen to my answer or sit there barking from the Back Benches. He has the choice in the limited time at our disposal.
These agreements attempt to align the Government's undoubted public responsibility for the handling and control of North Sea oil and its development with the commercial interests of the companies concerned. We believe that this has been achieved in the agreement to which I referred earlier and in the agreements which are now in progress. The agreements are not meaningless and were not made by statutory coercion or any other improper means.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that the Labour manifesto requested my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends to get 51 per cent. participation? Has he not got only 51 per cent. of the ability to purchase for the BNOC and not 51 per cent. of the investment or the votes? Is not that the message which Labour voters should clearly understand?

Mr. Lever: I am sure that the Conservative Party will be greatly indebted for the polemic to which we have been treated. The purposes of the manifesto are being achieved. If my hon. Friend will inform himself of the tax regime, the pipeline control, the pollution and depletion regulations, together with our seats on the operating agreement and the control of oil which results from these agreements, he will satisfy himself that the Government are fully discharging the obligations they have undertaken.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT AND PRICES)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on Community agricultural support and prices for 1976–77 and our decisions on guaranteed prices and grants following the Annual Review.
The Annual Review White Paper is published today. The changes for the main commodities are as follows.
The Community's target price for milk will rise in two stages, giving an average increase for the year of about 6 per cent. Because of the monetary changes, the increases in the major producing countries will be lower. The impact in the Community as a whole will also be considerably offset by two other measures.
First, the intervention price for skimmed milk powder will be set at 2 per cent. below the level implied by the target price change and a further 1 per cent. below that level from 16th September.
Secondly, the Council will decide by September on the way in which Community milk producers can make a financial contribution to the restoration of a balance in the milk sector. In these discussions I shall insist on the absolute need for measures which will deal adequately with the Community's structural surplus.
In the light of this, the Government have decided to increase the guaranteed price for milk to 9·46p a litre. This is an increase of about 6p per gallon to 43p a gallon. This is about 16 per cent. higher than the revised guaranteed price for this year. The standard quantity will be slightly increased to 13,865 million litres. The higher support level for farmers will not result in any increase in the retail price of milk before the autumn.
These decisions demonstrate the continuing priority which we give to economic milk production in the United Kingdom, while exercising restraint on the full level of Community prices. Thus we have been able to improve further the relative position of the United Kingdom milk producers.
The Commission's proposal for the payment of grants to farmers who undertake not to market milk has been deferred for further consideration. The Community contribution to the general butter subsidy will no longer apply to butter of non-Community origin but the rate of contribution has been increased.
The amount of skimmed milk powder which the Community makes available for food aid in 1976 will be increased to 200,000 tonnes. The Community also intends to dispose of 400,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder by a temporary scheme of compulsory incorporation in

animal feed. On a temporary basis, also, aid will be available for the private storage of certain other protein products.
During 1976 the Government will also discuss with representatives of milk producers, processors, consumers and other interested organisations the arrangements in the milk sector from the end of the transitional period. We intend to ensure a smooth transition to reliance on the Community support system.
For beef, I have achieved my major objective, to which this House attached great importance. The premiums are being continued so that, when beef is plentiful, the United Kingdom consumer will get it more cheaply than with a system of intervention only. Furthermore, the Commission has undertaken to produce by November a detailed report on the merits of intervention and the full premium system.
This is an important step towards the adoption of a premium system on a Community-wide basis. For this beef year the United Kingdom average monthly seasonal target price for the whole beef year will be £26·60 per live hundredweight rising by the end of the beef year to £28 compared with an average of £23·06 for this year. This will enable farmers to plan their marketings in an orderly way to the benefit of the consumer. With permission, I will circulate details in the Official Report, and I am making copies available in the Library of the House.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession, the United Kingdom guarantees for cereals are being terminated at the end of July. A new pattern of Community support for feed grain has been agreed. The target prices for wheat and maize will be increased by 9 per cent. The effective intervention level for feed wheat, however, will be reduced by nearly 8 per cent. below this year's basic intervention price. The intervention price for bread-making wheat will be only 4 per cent. above this year's level. For United Kingdom producers, however, their intervention price will be substantially above the level of this year's guarantee.
For sugar, the increase in support prices for beet—8 per cent.—will give a boost to our expansion programme after two bad years. I do not expect any increase in retail sugar prices as a result of this settlement.
I turn now to our decisions on United Kingdom guaranteed prices and grants The guaranteed price for sheep will be increased by 18 per cent. to 42p a pound; from 3rd January 1977 this will be expressed in metric terms as 92.6p a kilogramme. The guaranteed price for wool will be increased by 23 per cent. to 83·7p a kilogramme. These increases are greater than the estimated increase in the costs of these commodities and should give a solid floor to sheep farmers' returns in the coming year.
The hill sheep subsidy has been increased by almost 140 per cent. since the 1974 Review and will be continued at the present level next year. Hill farmers will benefit substantially from the new support prices for beef and the higher guaranteed prices for sheep and wool. We intend, however, to increase the hill cow subsidy to about the maximum level permitted by the Less Favoured Areas Directive. The increase will be £4·50 per cow and the new level will be £29 per cow. In order to give an early boost to hill cow farmers' incomes, this extra payment will not be held up until 1977 but, subject to the approval of Parliament, will be paid as a supplement to the 1976 payment which is now being made.
This has been an exceptional year for potatoes with supplies severely cut back by the weather. We do not intend to over-react, but a substantial increase in the guaranteed price is justified. It will be increased by 43 per cent. to £40 a ton. This will be expressed in metric terms as £39·37 a metric tonne.
We have also reviewed our national subsidies and capital grants. The beef cow and calf subsidies expire this year but we intend to put before the House statutory instruments which will extend them for a further period. The beef cow subsidy will continue to be paid in relation to cows on holdings on the qualifying date in 1977. The calf subsidy will be paid on calves born up to the end of April 1977 and some payments will, therefore, continue until early 1978. The broad effect of these decisions is that these aids will continue for a further period but will not be available when United Kingdom farmers are receiving the full benefit of Community support prices after the end of the transitional period.
We have also decided, subject to the approval of the House, to raise certain rates of capital grant under both the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme and the Farm Capital Grant Scheme. The increases, which are estimated to cost about an extra £30 million in a full year, are directed to investment in the better use and conservation of grass for all livestock and to economic milk production. The main improvements will be in grants for silos, milk buildings and equipment, cattle accommodation, barn hay fans, fencing, re-seeding and land reclamation. I hope to put Statutory Instruments before the House before Easter.
We intend to simplify the operation of the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme, which attracts a Community contribution, and to put a substantial advisory effort behind it. In consequence, many farmers will find that this scheme, with its high rates of grant, will be open to them. We also intend to pay the costs of any guarantees by the Agricultural Credit Corporation on the bank borrowing of farmers implementing development plans under the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme. The revised schemes will also include a number of higher grant rates in the hills.
In our White Paper last year we committed ourselves to the economic case for more production from our own farms. We set priorities and an objective to be pursued consistently to the early 1980s. These higher support prices and grants for our farmers make available the resources which will set us on course for a good farming year in 1976–77 and will help to achieve the medium term objectives in "Food from our own Resources".

Mr. Pym: The Minister was courteous enough to tell me at 3.28 p.m. that he had only just completed his statement and that no copy was available for me. I accept that there may be good reasons for that, but the mere fact that it happened underlines the gravity of the statement. It is the most complicated review we have had and is difficult to follow. Both because of its importance and of its implications, it is fair to ask for a debate in Government time so that all the implications may be considered.
The House will agree that the basic causes of the right hon. Gentleman's


difficulties are, first, hyper-inflation at home and the soaring costs that go with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is because of the Common Market."] Let hon. Members wait. They can have their turn in a moment. The White Paper indicates that the increase in costs in two years is more than £1 billion. The second factor is the sinking pound. Those are the reasons for food prices going up so fast. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Common Market."] These factors have a far greater influence than any connection with the Common Market.
We regret the weakness in the Government's negotiating position as a result of these factors for which the Government must take a collective responsibility. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that inflation at home is still grossly excessive even at its reducing rate and that this, combined with the sinking pound, makes agricultural expansion even more urgent and important than before? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long!"] In these circumstances import saving is becoming even more significant—

Hon. Members: Ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We heard a very long statement from the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman should ask a question."] Order. Hon. Gentlemen must not shout at me when I am on my feet. When a Minister has made an extended statement it is customary for the Opposition Front Bench to be allowed to ask a long supplementary question.

Mr. Pym: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that parts of the package are helpful and that we welcome them? I refer particularly to the hill cow subsidies, the capital grants and the horticulture scheme. I tried to list them as the right hon. Gentleman went through them. It is, of course, rash to act on first impressions, but I cannot escape the first impression that in the light of the two exceptionally bad years, in which we know the weather was a significant factor, it is doubtful whether the package as a whole will fulfil the undertakings and commitments entered into by the Minister in the White Paper last April.
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the green pound is already further out of line than when we debated agriculture about 10 days ago? Am I right in saying that the misalignment is approaching 10 per cent? The cause of that misalignment cannot be brushed aside. The representative rate of the green pound is basic to confidence in agriculture. Although the Minister may be pleased that he rejected the 2 per cent. change, I am certain that be will have to return to the subject very soon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] On the beef premium, is the Minister aware that we are glad that he has retained a version of his beef premium scheme, which is, unfortunately, watered down—

Mr. Peart: It is not watered down.

Mr. Pym: —but that we note that it is still not permanent? Is he aware that he has sacrificed a great deal for it? But we supported him in his attempt to get it and he should not exaggerate what he has achieved.
We are not satisfied with the proposals he has announced for skimmed milk. The proposals which were accepted are better than those which were before us when we debated the topic three weeks ago, but the United Kingdom is not in surplus and the surplus is not our responsibility. What the right hon. Gentleman has proposed is likely to prove unfair to pig and poultry producers and could conceivably affect the price of pigs by 10p a score, which is an avoidable increase.
I cannot now go into the other matters, such as milk, cereals, potatoes and sugar beet, but the comments I have made so far must indicate that a debate in Government time is justified after we have had an opportunity to consider the whole package, particularly in view of the enhanced and vital importance of agriculture to the British economy in the nation's present unfortunate circumstances.

Mr. Kelley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling about the length of the statement and the desirability of allowing the Opposition to put a lengthy supplementary question, will you also extend the period of discussion on the statement so that Back Benchers may make similarly lengthy contributions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not rule on the


length of the questions put by the shadow Minister. I followed long-established custom by allowing a long series of questions in response to a long statement by the Minister—

Mr. Russell Kerr: They were not questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot deal with heckling. Mr. Peart.

Mr. Peart: The question of a debate will be a matter for the usual channels and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I accept that this is a complicated statement. For that reason I hope that hon. Members will study carefully both what has been said and the White Paper, instead of coming to rash conclusions or taking up special positions.
I accept part of what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said about inflation, but, of course, it existed under the previous Conservative Administration. At that time fanners were affected considerably by it. I remember the imbalance between the livestock sector and the cereal sector with the tremendously high costs which prevailed. This situation is not peculiar to a Labour Administration. It existed under a Conservative Government, too.
Adjustments to the green pound are an important and serious question. I have made two adjustments in the last six months. I was right to take the stand that I took on this issue because there was a risk that food prices could be forced up much more.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so niggardly about the beef premium scheme. I think the farmers will welcome it, particularly with the new seasonal scale, which is an improvement on last year's arrangements. For the first time a variable premium system has been accepted in principle, and that is a deficiency payments system.
I agree that the question of skimmed milk needs watching very carefully. The important aspect here is the administration of the scheme. My hon. Friends and other hon. Members pressed me to tell the Community that it must get rid of surpluses. I give one example concerning food aid.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister aware that, although his statement was long and complicated, I shall not seek to compete with him or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), except that I shall be brief. What discussions were there in general about the green pound as the determinant of the prices paid to British farmers? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that disparity between the true exchange rate and the green pound has always hitherto worked to the disadvantage of British farmers? Was that point discussed?
Second, were the slaughter premiums agreed at less than he thought was the minimum for the health of our beef industry? Could he say something about pigs, which were not mentioned? While one unequivocally accepts his remarks about hill cow subsidies, which are extremely welcome, is this price review an indication to beef producers to expand production, cut it back or leave it much as it is?

Mr. Peart: As I said to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, I felt that it would have been wrong to make a move over the green pound in this price review, for the reasons I mentioned. On the question of my premia system, I believe that what I have said is right. When hon. Members carefully read the scale, they will see that farmers will be in a better position than last year. Pig prices are very good in the Community.

Mr. Jay: Did my right hon. Friend accept the compulsory use of skimmed milk powder in feeding stuffs as being beneficial to this country or simply because, as a member of the EEC, we could not avoid it?

Mr. Peart: I said that I did not like the scheme. I met the trade just before I went out to Europe. When a package is put together, however, there are times when one has to concentrate on how to improve the details. We shall still try to do that.

Mr. Powell: Would all the increases in food prices to the consumer which follow from this statement have been necessary if Britain had not been part of the EEC?

Mr. Peart: One has to accept that Northern Ireland farmers, Welsh farmers, hill


farmers and lowland fanners deserve a proper return to enable them to produce the food that we require and to expand. I regard this package as a fair balance and I believe that in the end the consumers will agree that giving the producer a fair return is the only way in which we can have security of supply, which I believe we shall now get.

Mr. Buchan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this package represents a major defeat for all the hopes with which we entered negotiations? Would he not agree that, on beef, we have accepted a whittled down and perhaps non-profitable version which in turn will be paid for by us instead of by the EEC? Would he not even now accept that our policy was not merely to get rid of surpluses but not to produce them in the first place and that the incorporation of 400,000 tons of skimmed milk powder compulsorily will add to the price of everything we eat in Britain? Finally, in defence of his position here, would my right hon. Friend not add weight to the case of those of us who are arguing for the necessity of maintaining food subsidies, particularly for the lower income groups?

Mr. Peart: On the question of improvements in the operation of the policy in Europe, I believe that when my hon. Friend looks carefully at the variable premium system, including the seasonal provision, which is important for the fanner and to ensure that the scheme is properly administered, he will agree that we have achieved a tremendous improvement. I am surprised that, like the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, my hon. Friend is so niggardly. I wonder why, because this is what he wanted.
We have argued over and over again that the price review determination should take into account the needs of the efficient farm. We have also argued and recognised the necessity for producer co-responsibility for surpluses, especially of milk. The Council of Ministers agreed to that. There is a problem with surpluses in the Community but there are similar problems in New Zealand, Australia and the United States. I would say to some of my hon. Friends that I would rather seek to achieve success in this direction and at the same time to recognise—

Mr. Molloy: Tell us when failure comes.

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will get up to ask me a direct question instead of shouting at me. I know him very well and I know that he is a reasonable man, although he may disagree with me, but hon. Members should listen to what I say. One of the great problems in the world is that countries such as the USSR had have failures in their agriculture and the Western world has had to help them out.

Mr. Watt: Although I congratulate the Minister on the many excellent features of the result of his negotiations, would he not agree that he should now bow to the inevitable and accept an intervention scheme for meat instead of sticking to the beef premium scheme? Does he not agree that the cash for an intervention scheme would come from the EEC, whereas the cash for the beef premium scheme must come from our own Exchequer?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have always said that I believed that the system of permanent intervention was not a good one. That is why I first negotiated what was called a fixed premium scheme and subsequently, in the price review negotiations, a variable premium scheme. I now have that system. Not only that, but I believe—

Mr. Watt: But it is only one.

Mr. Peart: No, it is not just one. I believe that Ireland, Holland and Germany look favourably on what we have done. There was good will in the Community on this. That is why—

Mr. Skinner: A pity we do not see more of it.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must please listen.
We also now have a recognition that this premium system, which was originally condemned by most people, could be enshrined in a Community system.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that, although it is essential to cover producers' costs, he and the Community are on the wrong course over dairy surpluses? Would he bear in mind the fact that what he


should have put forward was variable intervention prices and even national quotas for milk, so that those countries which produce only for surplus are dealt with? Why is that not being put forward? What the right hon. Gentleman has done in this matter is to store up trouble for the future.

Mr. Peart: If the hon. Gentleman carefully examines the implications of the price package for countries such as France and Germany, he will see that they have very small increases—3 per cent. and 2 per cent. That is why we must recognise that this award is not so good for them as people imagine. I mean this sincerely in relation to the percentage price increases for milk in Germany and France. Our position is different, and I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about it. When we debated the Scrutiny Committee's Report and associated matters, he put this point to me. This is a difficult problem, but we are still prepared to examine whatever proposals may emerge from the Commission and to discuss them in the Management Committee.

Mr. Roper: How far does my right hon. Friend feel that the Community price review has implemented the stocktaking report on the reform of the common agricultural policy? What more will he and his colleagues do to ensure that the cost of surpluses is borne by producers as well as by consumers and taxpayers?

Mr. Peart: That is a fair question, which I partly answered earlier. A price review based on the efficient and commercial farm was one of our objectves. That has been accepted. I believe also that the right of a country such as Britain to have the type of beef régime we think is better for our conditions has now been accepted. I believe that the principle of co-responsibiliy for getting rid of surpluses has also been accepted. One thing which did not emerge in the price review was the liberalisation of imports. I intended to raise New Zealand's position here, because it is very important, but after talks with the New Zealand Administration, I will do so at a later date.

Mr. John Davies: Is the Minister aware that, even for someone like myself who greatly supports the principle of intervention as a method of organising the

market, it is still to be found—by me certainly and I think by others—that the balance of judgment reached in the Council of Ministers is one which has too great a regard for the surplus producers of the Community and too little for a country such as ours, which is, after all, a great customer for those surpluses? Will the Minister assure the House that he is taking steps to get this balance better adjusted in the Community?

Mr. Peart: I accept that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter previously. On the other hand, some people say: "Are there not inconsistencies in your policy of trying to increase your own, say, milk production while at the same time supporting a policy to restrict milk production in the Community?" I agree, because we are in a special position, that this is something that we must carefully and vigorously scrutinise and watch. I will do just that.

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend invited us to listen to him, but will he accept that those who listened to him most carefully in the years when he was a leading opponent of this country's entry into the EEC have found that he was correct when he warned the British people against entry? We are confirmed in our view from the fact presented to us as a result of these negotiations. First, can he confirm or deny the official French and German reports that for the limited concessions on beef, for which he asked and which he received, he had to make considerable concessions on the prices of other commodities? Secondly, will he publish a White Paper without delay setting out the real increases in the cost of food since entry into the EEC, because that will prove that prices are much higher than the Government have ever admitted?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend said. I believe that the deal I negotiated for the Government was right. My hon. Friend is a member of the party which recognised that we were right to renegotiate. That was our policy. However, at the end of the day I achieved concessions which cannot be ignored. A man is a silly fool if he refuses to face facts. I respect my hon. Friend—indeed, we used to go to Strasbourg together—but I ask him to look at

facts of life, read the White Paper and see just what we have negotiated. In the end we shall be found right to have accepted membership and to be making our influence felt.

Mr. Hicks: Is the Minister aware that his announcement about the further support for hill areas is most welcome? Is he also aware that the present position of hill areas is serious? Will he explain how hill farmers can claim supplementary benefit? When is that likely to take place?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give the exact date. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement this afternoon is a complete farce and has rendered superfluous any form of real consumer protection in this country? Is he further aware that this agreement will have a serious and deleterious effect on aspects of the Government's policy with the trade union movement while wages are being held down and while the Government promise that every endeavour will be made to maintain prices? All that stands in danger of going by the board and, therefore, the Government's policy on inflation can be seriously affected by this statement. Will my right hon. Friend not revert to his former thinking, when he correctly believed that the dream of the Common Market could turn out to be a nightmare? Is he aware that we are witnessing the first effects this afternoon?

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will examine the figures carefully. By the end of the year the effect may be an increase of 1¼ per cent. on the Retail Food Index. The transitional step will add about an extra 1 per cent. For example there will be an increase of 1p on liquid milk but not until October. The Brussels settlement, the transitional step and United Kingdom guaranteed price increases will add not more than 1p in the pound to the cost of living by the end of the year.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister accept that many horticultural growers, rather than receiving grants, would prefer to be given tax concessions similar to those given to industry in development areas? Would he consider this point and also publish details of such concessions and grants as are available, seeing that pub-

licity is given in the technical Press, so that growers may know what they can get as soon as possible?

Mr. Peart: Perhaps I could correct a mistake that I made. I gave a figure on milk for the end of October. I should have said there would be no increase until the end of the year. I did not discuss horticulture fully in the Community. There are problems over fuel, and so on. However, we must appreciate that fuel prices have to be allowed to work through.

Mr. Kelley: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that if the nation had accepted his advice during 1970 to 1974 the housewife in the High Street need not necessarily have been faced with the problem with which she will be faced as a result of this agreement?

Mr. Peart: I do not accept that now. What has been agreed is reasonable. It is a package. Apart from that, we have great strength and influence in the Community. Britain alone would still have to have a price review. I received the same criticism when I was previously Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Minister please publish the penultimate item in Table 1:
Consumers' expenditure on food and alcoholic beverages …
Percentage of total consumers' expenditure
net of excise duty, so that the percentage figure is not distorted by increases in excise duty on alcohol, which are imposed for purely fiscal reasons and which can give quite the wrong impression of a trend?

Mr. Peart: I shall certainly note that.

Mr. Spearing: We have been told about the compulsory incorporation of skimmed milk into feeding stuffs. Can the Minister give us some idea of the animals in this country to which this new feed mixture must be fed, the tonnages involved, whether this will mean the import of skimmed milk from the mainland of Europe, how much extra this feed will cost compared to the alternatives and who will pay for the extra amount?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say how much it will cost. I have already said that the scheme will be considered in detail in the Management Committee and the


special committees. We are looking at this carefully. It could affect our poultry and pig producers.

Mr. Marten: Will not this price review increase the skimmed milk mountain? What is the skimmed milk mountain costing the British people at present? After all, they did not create any of it. Does the Minister agree with page 18 of the price review document on agriculture which shows that nearly all the main food that we need is much cheaper outside the Common Market—and was cheaper last year during the referendum?

Mr. Peart: I believe that food prices in the Community compare favourably with those in countries outside the Community. I have given indications of where there are shortages in many countries. In the Community similar shortages do not arise. For that reason this is the correct policy.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go on debating this matter now.

Following is the information:

DETAILS OF SEASONAL TARGET PRICES FOR BEEF FOR 1976–77

The average target price for the year is £26·60 per live cwt. The average target prices for the following periods will be:



1976
£ per live cwt.


March15-April4
26·30


April
26·70


May
27·30


June
27·00


July
26·40


August
25·80


September
25·30


October
25·30


November
26·10


December
27·00


1977


January to mid-February
27·55


Mid-February to mid-March
28·00

From these figures a weekly scale of target prices will be derived, the range of which will be from £25 per live cwt. in the early autumn to £28 per live cwt. from mid-February 1977. The prices for the weeks beginning March 15 and 22 will be £26·30 per live cwt The remaining weekly target prices will be announced as soon as possible. On this basis the amount of variable premium due each week will be calculated. Payment of beef premium will however be subject to the general terms agreed by the Council of Ministers. These include a ceiling on the amount of premium payable in any week of £2·88 per live cwt. for the United Kingdom as a whole.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLUTION) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That the Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Pendry.]

AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House takes note of the Government's intention to make fresh provision with regard to agricultural tenancies.

4.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): When the Opposition expressed a strong desire 10 days or so ago that we should spend a few hours discussing the question of family succession to agricultural tenancies they set the House a greater procedural conundrum than at the time they probably realised. The formal situation is, I think, generally known. Last November the Government presented a quite short and modest but useful Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to which the House gave an unopposed Second Reading on 1st December last.
The Bill did not contain any provision for family succession to farm tenancies, and this fact was commented on—in some cases unfavourably and in some more favourably—by a number of hon. Members—on my count about a dozen—who intervened in the debate. Among points to which reference was made was, of course, the fact that a legal right to family succession has existed in Scotland for a number of years. Following the Second Reading, the Bill was committed, in accordance with our normal procedure, to a Standing Committee which has been considering it in detail since the middle of December.
Because the question of family succession gave rise to so much interest in the Second Reading debate, we naturally undertook to give it further consideration, and duly did so. The upshot was that, since it seemed clear that there was on merits a case for making legislative provision now in this matter and in view of the strength of the views which were evidently held on it in various quarters—not by any means confined to a single political party—we decided that it would be right to seek to secure the addition to the Bill of new clauses for this purpose, and my right hon. Friend informed the Committee of this intention on 3rd February, tabling the new clauses themselves on 25th February.
In pressing on behalf of the Opposition for a debate on the subject, some right

hon. and hon. Members used the rather absurd argument that, because the Bill as originally presented had not included these provisions, there had been no opportunity to consider them from the viewpoint of the issues of principle involved. I describe this argument as rather absurd because, as I have already mentioned, well over half the speakers on Second Reading, incidentally including the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), gave the House at least some indication of their views on this subject, so that it was well ventilated.
However, we readily concede that there is a difference between discussing a topic as an abstract matter of policy or principle and debating it, as we are now doing, on the footing that it represents a firm and announced Government intention. Hence I welcome today's debate on an important question from the social, agricultural and other points of view, and it deserves careful consideration. I trust that our discussions today on the principles will assist the Committee when it comes soon to discuss the details.
My aim is to give some indication of the thinking which underlay the Government's decision to table the new clauses on family succession, to explain in quite general terms how we should expect to see these provisions operating in practice, and finally to explain why having decided against including provisions on this subject in the Bill as originally presented, my colleagues and I reached the view that it would after all be right to seek their inclusion in the course of the Committee stage. The House is entitled to expect that.
To start with the basic principles at issue, I doubt whether any Member of the House who has the slightest acquaintance with agricultural or rural life would disagree with me when I say that the relationship of a tenant farmer, and his family, with his farm and with his landlord is a peculiarly close one.
After all, to the farmer, his wife and his children, the farm is home, in the sense that it normally provides the house in which they live. It is the place where they spend most of their working and, indeed, leisure hours, too. At the same time, the farm represents the tenant's business, very probably over a period of many years, from which he draws his


own and his family's livelihood, into which he ploughs back, in the most literal sense, part of his profit as well as devoting to it the main share of his own, and often his family's, physical effort.
I do not think that this is an over-idealised picture—it is not so intended—and it follows from this relationship that if, on the death of the tenant, the farm is transferred into other hands, there can be a distinct element of hardship suffered by members of the dead man's family.
We all know that in a large proportion of cases no such hardship in practice arises. Landlords, because they have developed this particularly close relationship with tenants and their families, and perhaps because it is in their own best interest to secure new tenants who both know their farming and know the particular farm, will often agree without hesitation to let one of the dead tenant's sons or other close relatives succeed to a tenancy.
But although we know that this is a common occurrence, we equally know that things do not always work out so smoothly and that there are cases—perhaps only a minority—in which it is impossible to avoid a feeling that hardship has been created by the landlord's unwillingness to allow some member of the tenant's family to succeed to the tenancy. The views which I have heard in recent months—views which have come to me not only from right hon. and hon. Members, but also from major organisations such as the farmers' unions—have persuaded me that in principle some limited legal provision for family succession is desirable in the interests of fairness, equity, humanity—or however else one might like to describe it—and in the wider interests of agriculture and of food production.
I deliberately spoke of "some limited provision" for family succession, and I should explain what I mean by this phrase. By "limited" I have in mind several things. First, it seems to me that in social or human terms a claim to succeed to a tenancy, if the main purpose is to avoid possible hardship, is likely to have real strength only in the case of a near relative, such as a wife or husband, son or daughter, in which I would include adopted or step-son or

step-daughter or brother or sister. After all, we do not in normal daily life regard the kinship of a nephew or cousin on the same plane of proximity as that of the really close relatives that I have mentioned, and this seems to me to be a relevant distinction in the present context.
Secondly, I feel that a claim to succession has moral force only if the relative concerned has developed over a period of years a close knowledge, understanding and affinity with the land in question. To illustrate this point, consider a tenant farmer who has two sons. One of them stays with his parents, possibly going off at some point to gain wider experience with some other farmer or to take a course at an agricultural college, after which useful educational experience he comes back to work with his father at home. His brother meanwhile has emigrated to the other end of the world, where he has become a competent and, if he is lucky, a wealthy farmer. Surely we would all think that when the father dies it is the son who has stayed at home and worked on the farm rather than the other son who is all set to fly back from the Antipodes who has the stronger moral claim to succeed to the tenancy.
Thirdly, it would not be in anyone's interest—certainly not that of the landlord, nor in the national economic interest, which requires the most efficient production of food, nor even in the interest of the individual concerned—to provide for a right of succession to a tenancy by someone who had not by training and experience, by health and financial standing the ability to farm well and to make a satisfactory tenant. It is criteria of this sort—closeness of relationship, length of experience, and knowledge of the farm, and the possession of adequate training, health and financial standing—which I have in mind when I refer to the Government's acceptance in principle of the case for a "limited" scheme for family succession.
I come now to consider how, in the Government's view, the principle which I have described can best be given effect. Let me say at once that the fact that my right hon. Friend has tabled seven new clauses, which are intended to replace and to fulfil very much the same purpose as the single new clause originally tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for


Durham (Mr. Hughes) and Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), is in no sense intended to belittle his initiative or that of other hon. Members who supported him. I congratulate them. However, I am afraid that this is yet another illustration of the sad fact that, when one is legislating, things almost always turn out to be more complex than one had expected. My right hon. Friend is anxious that if we are to deal with this subject at all we should get it as nearly right as possible.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Would it not have been far better, as was promised in 1968 when this matter was mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture's predecessor, had there been a major overhaul of the Agricultural Holdings Act? Would that not have been preferable to muddling with the Agricultural Holdings Act in a miscellaneous provisions Bill?

Mr. Morris: I shall deal with that matter in the latter part of my speech when I come to the general reforms of agricultural holdings. I hope that I shall carry the hon. Gentleman with me when I say in connection with the substance of what we are doing that we are not muddling and that this provision has been welcomed by a whole host of organisations although other organisations have rejected it. Certainly the National Farmers' Union has welcomed it as both fair and equitable.

Mr. Hawkins: Who else?

Mr. Jasper More: What has been the attitude of the Farmers' Union of Wales?

Mr. Morris: It has certainly warmly supported the provision. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
I cannot say, when one compares the seven clauses with the clause drafted by hon. Members, that it gave me any pleasure to find that so many clauses were required. But I want to reassure my hon. Friends that our objectives are very close together, as indeed, it appears are our views on method. I was reminded when reading the clause that they tabled that it was similar, if not word for word the same, as a clause tabled by Mr. Elystan Morgan in 1966 and I think also in 1968. Undoubtedly, he will be pleased with the

progress that is now being made in fulfilling his aims.
When we turned to consider the implementation of the principle which I have discussed, we quickly reached the view that my hon. Friends had been right in their new clause to propose the Agricultural Land Tribunal as the main instrument for decision-making in this field. Some Members have doubtless come into closer touch, like myself, than others with the activities of this Tribunal, or network of tribunals, as in reality it is.
But I think the House will agree that the Tribunal is a particularly well balanced body and much experienced in the type of case which involves the hearing of notice to quit cases. The chairman is an experienced barrister or solicitor appointed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and assisted by two lay members who represent the land owning and farming interests, and are drawn from lists of persons nominated by the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers' Union respectively. Moreover, the Tribunal can call on the assistance of two assessors drawn from a panel of professional men nominated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
I think that it will be generally accepted—this certainly was my professional experience—that the Tribunal has earned a well-deserved reputation for fairness, impartiality, experience and common sense—qualities which are essential in deciding the sort of cases with which we are here concerned. I am sure that we have chosen the right instrument for this purpose.
Turning to the work which the Tribunal will be called upon to undertake, I foresee that there may in any particular case be two rather different types of question at issue, either or both of which may need decision. First, there may be a question, after the death of a tenant, whether a particular close relative, perhaps a son, who wishes to succeed to the tenancy is qualified, on the sort of criteria which I discussed a few minutes ago, to do so. This will involve consideration of the length of time during which the applicant has worked on the holding, an assessment of his agricultural competence, age, health, financial standing and so on; and any views on him expressed by the landlord will be relevant as well. There may


be just one relative who applies for consideration and meets these tests. But there may be two or even more who do so and it will then be the Tribunal's duty to form a judgment as to which of the qualified applicants has the strongest claim.
At the risk of a short digression I should like at this point to mention the question as to what weight it would be right to attach to any testamentary bequest expressed in the will of a deceased tenant. It seemed to us that it would be difficult to justify a scheme which provided a legal right to apply for the succession to a tenancy only in cases where this had been expressed as his wish in a will left by the deceased tenant.
On the other hand, it seemed to us that it would be equally wrong to go to the other extreme and to say that a testamentary bequest was of no relevance and should be disregarded. We concluded that it would be right to provide that an applicant, designated by the deceased in his will, should have an overriding claim as against any other applicants, provided of course that the Agricultural Land Tribunal were satisfied as to the other relevant matters. This seems to us to be a fair and workable arrangement.
I have concentrated so far on the first class of question which the Agricultural Land Tribunal may be asked to consider and decide—the qualification, against the criteria which I have outlined, of a close relative who applies for the succession to the tenancy or, if there should be more than one qualified applicant, the choice between them of the strongest candidate.
Another class of question will arise in a case where the landlord wishes to resist an application to succeed by a close relative of his deceased tenant, either because he wishes to relet the farm to some other tenant or because he wants to take it in hand and farm it himself or perhaps wants to sell it with vacant possession. Under the present law a landlord whose tenant dies can, if he so wishes, serve a notice to quit and regain possession of the holding at the end of the next full year of a tenancy. Such a notice cannot be contested.
The scheme which the Government are proposing would require the consent by the Agricultural Land Tribunal to the

operation of such a notice to quit but would lay down the considerations which the Tribunal must take into account. These would include a number of considerations which, in a slightly different context, feature in the existing law—for example, the interests of good husbandry, of sound estate management, agricultural training or research, the need of the land for some other use, or simply that greater hardship would be caused by withholding than by giving consent. And we are proposing to add a new consideration—that arising in the case where the holding is too small to be a commercial unit and the landlord proposes to amalgamate it quite soon with other land to form a commercial unit. Overriding all these considerations is the wide question of judgment whether in all the circumstances it appears to the Tribunal that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession.
I will not go further into the detail of our proposals. I would simply add as one last point that we had to consider whether the scheme which I have outlined should operate for an indefinite period of time or on some limited number of occasions. Here again we approached the problem by considering the extreme possibilities.
At the one extreme it would have been possible to place no limit on the number of successions which could take place under the scheme, so that in theory successions within a single tenant family could continue in perpetuity. This would deprive the landlord of any assurance that he would ever be able to regain possession of what, after all, is his own holding and his own buildings. We felt that such an arrangement would be likely to cause such serious damage to the landlord-tenant system and to prove so severe a disincentive to the letting of farms that in the interests of maintaining a healthy and efficient agricultural industry it would be imprudent to adopt this course.
At the other end of the scale, we felt that to limit the operation of the scheme which we had in mind to one single occasion would deprive it of much of its practical effectiveness, and would be unnecessarily restrictive.
We accordingly felt that, as an intermediate course, there would be advantage in following the precedent which we have in the case of dwellings in the Rent Acts,


by providing that the right to family succession may operate on not more than two successive occasions. This will meet the case where on the death of a tenant he is succeeded by a son, who in the fullness of time dies and is in turn succeeded by his own son, that is to say, by a grandson of the original tenant. That is by way of illustration.
I am advised that the up-to-date figure for the average length of a tenancy is somewhere between 30 and 40 years, so that a considerable degree of family continuity will be provided under our proposals. We do not think that it would be desirable, or is necessary on social grounds, to legislate for a longer period ahead than this.
I hope that from what I have said it will be clear that our intention and strong desire throughout the preparation of these proposals has been to devise a statutory scheme which will hold a fair, reasonable and just balance between the interests of the various parties concerned and which will best accord with the needs of agriculture. I am encouraged to think that I may have had some degree of success in this objective by the fact that the farming unions in England and in Wales, whose membership includes tenant farmers, owner-occupiers and landlords, have, to judge by their comments reported in the Press, found our proposals broadly acceptable and satisfactory.
The Country Landowners Association, which is primarily representative of private landlords, has, understandably, been more critical. But we have kept in close touch in recent weeks with its officers, and I take this opportunity to express our thanks for the unfailing courtesy and constructive spirit in which they have conveyed their views and comments to us. While I can understand their grounds for feeling that at a time when some private landowners may have particular reasons for wanting to take farms in hand or to sell them with vacant possession, our proposals may create difficulties for such landlords, I believe that their fears will prove to be exaggerated.
Under the scheme which we are proposing, the landlord will have every opportunity, if he wishes, to develop his case before the Agricultural Land Tribunal, and, as I have already said, I believe that the Tribunal is a body in which all parties concerned can place

confidence. That was certainly my experience at the time when I used to appear in a professional capacity before the tribunal.
I do not believe that this legislation will mean that never again will any privately owned farms be let, or that it will be detrimental to agricultural production. On the contrary, I believe that the feeling of greater security for his family will encourage the tenant farmer to farm even better than he does today, and will encourage his sons to develop their skills, and that, on balance, this will strengthen British agriculture, not weaken it.

Sir Paul Bryan: If that be so, and if it be such a great advantage to farming that the tenant farmer should be in that position, why is the State as landlord not coming into the scheme?

Mr. Morris: Wherever the Minister is responsible for land, he will certainly carry out the spirit of the legislation. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to local government holdings—

Sir P. Bryan: Yes.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman used the word "State", and that is why I was about to raise the question. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with that question in reply. I do not wish to take unduly long at this stage. Hon. Members may ask why should not all government come into the scheme. Hon. Members know that local authorities are democratically elected, and they seek to ensure that they fulfil their obligations in the full gaze of the public eye. Moreover, there are certain regulations, of which hon. Members may not have heard, which deal with their responsibilities in these matters. My hon. Friend will, as I say, deal with the matter at greater length. I now understand that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) was referring not to State holdings but to local authority holdings.

Mr. Alan Clark: Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman shrink from admitting that the real distinction is the prejudice against private property which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends hold? They see a distinct difference in quality between farms which are privately owned and land which is held by the State. They choose


to penalise the one and to benefit the other.

Mr. Morris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to consult any friends he may have in the National Farmers' Union to discover their views on this matter and whether our proposals are in any way regarded by them as being a matter of pique or prejudice. In fact, they are regarded as fair, reasonable and equitable, and I hope that, after the hon. Gentleman has consulted his friends and come back to the Committee, he will consider these matters in detail in a different light. I trust that he will take up my invitation to ascertain what his friends in the NFU believe.
I wish to say a brief word about a line of comment which has reached me from various quarters, to which reference was made my the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) in his earlier intervention. I refer here to the suggestion that, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the principle of family succession, this miscellaneous provisions Bill is not an appropriate measure in which to deal with the subject.
I have to admit—indeed, it is obvious—that we did not originally intend that family succession should be dealt with in the Bill. This reflected the fact that we are faced, as any Government tend to be nowadays, with a perennial struggle to accommodate within the limits of the parliamentary timetable all the legislation which we regard as desirable. It is not an easy task to balance the priorities of what should be in this kind of Bill and what not. Another consideration in our minds was that there are various respects in which the agricultural holdings legislation is ripe for review and amendment. The hon. Gentleman was right there, and I endorse his comment in that light.
There has already been a fair amount of discussion with interested agricultural and professional organisations. Some changes are generally agreed to be desirable. Others still require discussion and decision. If parliamentary time had been unlimited, we might have hoped in the current session to be able to bring forward an Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill, and I accept that, if that has been so, this would probably have been the most natural and convenient measure

in which to tackle the question of family succession. But time is not unlimited, and this opportunity was not open to us.
I trust that the House will find it gratifying that the expression of keen interest in the matter which was voiced on Second Reading, combined with the public discussion which has taken place since 1st December last, has persuaded the Government that there is a substantial body of opinion which regards this subject as deserving a sufficiently high order of priority to be included in the Bill. This is what parliamentary democracy is all about, and we are happy to respond. We have taken action accordingly.
My right hon. Friend still hopes to find an opportunity in the not too distant future to deal with other questions in regard to agricultural holdings which deserve attention. But the fact that we are not able to do so now is not, in our view, an adequate reason for not taking action on family succession.
To sum up, therefore, I submit that the Government's proposals represent a workmanlike and equitable approach to a subject which is a matter of widespread interest, that they will help to eliminate cases where hardship might otherwise arise, that they will strengthen rather than weaken the landlord-tenant relationship, and will prove on balance beneficial to the efficient production of food in England and Wales.
I pray in aid the words in the recent statement by the National Farmers' Union:
The National Farmers' Union has … endeavoured from the outset to devise a formula that would be fair and balanced … The NFU considers that the scheme embodied in new Clauses 7 to 13 does in fact strike that fair balance.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I declare an interest as a landlord and as a tenant—in my latter capacity with lots of near relations.
I should like to thank the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary for providing time for this debate. I am certain that it is right to have it, but that does not mean, as I very well know from past experience, that time is ever readily or easily available. I should like to say at the outset that I hope the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will


attend as much of this debate as he possibly can. I fully appreciate that he has other matters on his mind, and so have all of us, but it would be an advantage to us all if he were present, at any rate for part of this debate.
The way that the Government have handled this proposal for hereditary tenancies is a good example of how Parliament ought not to deal with legislation. The Government had no intention originally of legislating in this way in this Bill; otherwise the clauses would have been in the original Bill. There was no mention of this subject in the Minister's opening speech on Second Reading, except in answer to an intervention. Had the Government intended to legislate, they would have taken adequate and proper time to conduct all the usual and necessary consultations, and they would have done their homework thoroughly. But they did not.
I appreciate that recently, and hurriedly, they have been doing so, but they did not do it thoroughly at the outset. Faced with the Minister's decision not to legislate, the Parliamentary Secretary and other hon. Members opposite started chipping away underneath. The Back Benches were encouraged to table a new clause, which they were entitled to do—

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me, as the person who tabled a clause, the unreserved comment that at no time did I receive from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary any encouragement to "chip away" or to put down such a clause behind closed doors or anywhere else? That statement must be withdrawn as being factually inaccurate. As the person who put down the clause, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Pym: It is extremely difficult to put that interpretation on the winding-up speech of the Parliamentary Secretary or on the words used by the Minister in answer to the intervention by his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney). At any rate, a nod and a wink—call it what you like—there was no absence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is nothing wrong with that. But I maintain that it is very

difficult to interpret the winding-up speech or the Minister's reply to an intervention except in the terms that I have stated. What happened was that the campaign, which was legitimate, intensified, and the right hon. Gentleman found himself in a position of having to legislate. The Government then started drafting proposals in earnest, only to find that they had been driven not into a simple scheme but into a position of requiring seven new clauses. What was believed to be a significant but comparatively slight change to the law on land tenure was found to be more complicated. Its implications are far-reaching and have not been given the thought and consideration that they certainly warrant.
Our position on the Opposition Benches has been and still is that a review of the working of the agricultural holdings legislation is necessary and, indeed, overdue. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his opening speech indicated that he accepted that fact in principle. But I find his excuse about parliamentary time, and so forth, slightly lame. At any rate, if we are agreed about the need for it, that is something. Some of my hon. Friends will speak on the weakness or the failures, in practice, of the working of the 1948 Act. The law in this field needs to be looked at and thought of as a whole. Each part impinges on another part, and any adjustment of one part affects the structure of the whole.
These new clauses are a piecemeal approach—an ad hoc adjustment—which will not stand the test of time. Their ramifications, if left as drafted, will affect the whole of our land tenure system. Therefore, we on the Opposition Benches reserve our position absolutely on the agricultural holdings legislation. It is in need of a review now, and will be in even more need, anyway, after the Conservative Party comes to power at the next election. We reserve our position to make whatever changes seem to us appropriate, all in the interests of homegrown food production. At any rate, that objective is something that we share across the Floor.
We are dealing with one aspect—a profound one—of the landlord-tenant system. That system has been an indispensable element in the success of the industry. We tamper or tinker with it at our peril. In numerous cases, sons


have succeeded their fathers, in many instances for several generations, on the same farm—a marvellous tradition—and continuity has been built up. Equally, there have been, though alas not nearly to the same extent today, plenty of opportunities for new entrants to come into farming with all the fresh thinking, innovation and vitality that they bring.

Mr. Norman Buchan: How many?

Mr. Pym: Thousands. Whatever else can be said of these proposals, I cannot see how anyone can argue that a new entrant coming into farming can be in a position other than infinitely worse than before, and perhaps impossible. It is significant that the young farmers' organisation is against these changes. They see all too painfully clearly the limitation to be imposed on them and the reduction of their chances in finding farms to rent.
The Minister of Agriculture—I am sorry he is not here—maintained, as did the Secretary of State for Wales, that he believes in the landlord-tenant system. He said in Committee on 3rd February that the new clauses will
strengthen still further the landlord-tenant system of farming which plays so important a rôle in British agriculture."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 3rd February 1976; c. 421.]
I wish I could think that he was right. The system is already under severe stress. Apart from the workings of the law on land tenure, there is the crippling burden of taxation on capital no less than on income, and I understand that there is more to come in the form of a wealth tax. The Labour Party Policy Committee document on nationalising the land, now endorsed by the Labour Party Executive Committee, assumes the introduction of such a tax. What was the Minister's comment on that? Nothing. He had nothing to say. How can the system continue if it is being bled of its resources? The State certainly has not got the resources, and the country is being taxed to death. Already there is an ugly distortion in the very system which the right hon. Gentleman says he supports so strongly. I hope he is sticking up for the farmers with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the same vigour and resolution as the industry itself.
It is fair for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that the official NFU line is also in support of these new clauses, and he quoted accurately from the Press statement, but I think the NFU is wrong. Many tenants and the families may be pleased in the immediate future, but the long-term effect is much more important. I will go this far with the Government on the principles involved in these new clauses: first, that some kind of preferential arrangement for the son of a tenant, provided that he is suitably qualified, capable and a fit person to take on the holding, might well be devised. For decades this has been the actual practice, voluntarily undertaken in a good many cases, and to the lasting benefit of all the families involved. It happens less today but that is because of the pressures of taxation. None the less, the sons of tenants are, as they have always been regarded as being, in a special position. New Clause 7, however, goes much wider than sons. It is not restricted to the deceased tenant's uncles, cousins and aunts; it extends to a lot of near relations.
Secondly, I would go this far with the right hon. Friend, that some procedure for assessing and judging cases of genuine hardship could also be devised and, I believe, would be appreciated. I say this despite the fact that it has been remarkable in the operation of the landlord-tenant system how few such cases of hardship there have been. I suspect that the truth is that in the overwhelming majority of cases the good old-fashioned common sense of the agricultural community has worked. Nevertheless, any and every case of hardship is most certainly a cause for concern, and a new procedure for considering them would be valuable and, in my view, appreciated.
This brings me to the first substantive matter on the new clauses. The Minister has referred in Committee and outside the House to "effective safeguards" for the landlord. I shall need to be convinced that these proposals provide them. In his opening speech the Secretary of State spoke at length of the qualifications that the deceased tenant's relative would need to have, but I heard very little about the landlord's side of things. Apart from the narrow addition in New Clause 11 to the grounds upon which a notice to quit may be upheld we are not


satisfied that the potential hardship of the landlord is adequately covered by reference back to Section 25(c) of the 1948 Act. Upon what basis is "greater hardship" to be adjudged?

Mr. John Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since 1948 the greater hardship provisions have generally been regarded as operating satisfactorily? Why should they not work in this context? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to add to or amend those cases which are adjudicated upon regularly?

Mr. Pym: We have talked of the tenant's son, but what about the landlord's son? The landlord's son might have been planning and training to farm a holding. He might or might not farm it well, like the tenant's son, or anyone else. How is his interest and /or his hardship to be assessed?
There is very little case law which is relevant here under the 1948 Act. Something positive needs to be put into this new package to clarify what is meant by hardship and to make it clear that hardship on both sides will be fully considered. What about the landlord's tax position for example? No tribunal has considered that. Will it be a valid claim, upheld by the tribunal, if a landlord can show that he needs to sell with vacant possession to meet the confiscatory demands of a Labour Government? Will the notice to quit stand?
It is possible that a landlord will have other assets but for a variety of reasons he may not wish to dispose of them and may wish to sell a holding with vacant possession. Would that be an overriding reason for a tribunal to find for the landlord?
The word "overriding" appears in the new clause in the context of a tenant's will but the landlord will want to have knowledge of what is envisaged in these circumstances. We must have answers to these questions The Minister's declared intention to protect the landlord's interests needs to be spelt out more specifically and positively in the Bill.
This leads me to my next strong reservation about agricultural land tribunals. They have served agriculture well, with public acceptance and without controversy. I endorse what the Secretary of State has said about them his afternoon.
But they are now to be charged with more onerous responsibilities which will be of a more social, personal and family nature. They are to be asked to judge between the relative hardships of families, each with its own aspirations and ambitions, qualities and qualifications, their own human and other problems. What a difficult judgment. I question whether the agricultural land tribunals, for all their excellence and integrity in respect of their existing statutory responsibilities, are designed to make such delicate human judgments.
There is also the question whether it is right for such delicate matters to be heard in the locality where the problem arises and, perhaps, by people who know the families involved. One could argue that that might be an advantage, but equally one could imagine that there could be some bitter and hard feelings. Are the hearings to be in public or in private? I think that such hearings have been in public up to now.

Mr. John Morris: I fail to follow the right hon. Gentleman. He must know that this kind of issue, in another context, is being adjudicated by these tribunals. They deal with the issue of greater hardship, particularly as it affects notices to quit, and they have gained general acceptance.

Mr. Pym: I have been trying to say that the decisions and judgments which will flow from these new clauses are of a different character and kind. I entirely endorse what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the tribunals in another context. In this case greater hardship will have to be judged in circumstances which have not existed before. Something totally new in scale, degree, character and kind is now being proposed, and that causes me anxiety.
Are the hearings to be in private? There wil be some very delicate issues involved. The circumstances surrounding the relation of the deceased tenant and the circumstances of the land will have to be weighed. That is a new kind of judgment. It seems quite clear that the Government have not considered these aspects of the problems deeply enough. They have not given themselves enough time. We are dealing here with the human aspects of families, and I do


not think that the matter has been considered in this light before. The Government have not given themselves enough time to consider this in detail. The House ought to hear more about it. The points that I have raised—the hardship of the landlord and the relative position of both sides in the argument—are totally different in degree from those matters currently considered by the tribunals.
The right hon. Gentleman will meet with strong opposition to his exemption of himself and local authorities with smallholdings from the provisions of the clauses. The whole proposition goes too far, anyway, but to create one law for all private landlords and their tenants, and another for himself as Minister of Agriculture and his own tenants, and smallholdings authorities as landlords and their tenants, is tantamount to admitting that the scheme is not all that good anyway. Obviously the exact provisions will have to be adjusted if only because the hardship of the Minister and the hardship of the smallholding authority is different from that of a landlord. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Some gander! The right hon. Gentleman will have to find more justification for his line than he has so far.
Smallholdings have played a useful part in launching new entrants on the farming ladder. Where will they go now? How are they ever to move on? Where will the farms to let come from? No doubt the big estates will carry on in their admirable tradition, but for the small and medium estates there is no incentive to let. There is a positive discouragement to let to anyone except to a tenant who has no relations and is unlikely to acquire any; otherwise the landlord says goodbye to his holding for the lifetime of his tenant, as he does now, and for two subsequent successions. What does the Minister mean by legislating for the intermediate stage of two successions? That was an obscure bit of small print fitted in in the hope that I would not notice. A tenant for life and two successions might last for a century, which is too long. Not only does that deprive the landlord of some of his fundamental rights as an owner of property; it denies him the right

to exercise his judgment on who is the best tenant for the farm.
I am sure that it will not have escaped the notice of hon. Gentlemen opposite that about a month ago the Farmers' Guardian, in an article called "Viewpoint", regarded this as "a highly dangerous precedent". The independent judgments of landlords, no less than of tenants and everyone else in the industry, are of the very essence of the success of the landlord-tenant system. I wonder why the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds that so funny?
There are other consequences and implications of this scheme which I do not have time to explain and deploy without trespassing too much on the time of the House. For example, there is the likely effect on the level of rents. What is the Government's assessment of that effect? There is the need to find new and additional encouragements to induce landlords to let their land, without which the whole system cannot work. There is also the desirability of examining the possible use of fixed-term tenancies in certain circumstances. That must arise in the context of what is proposed in these new clauses.
All these and many other matters can be discussed in Committee, because the House would not wish and ought not to legislate on the structure of agriculture without full awareness of all the implications.
I think that the House would agree that agriculture has been one of our outstanding national successes—progressive, innovative and technically excellent. There are many reasons for this, and I want to conclude by referring to one of them.
Since the war, until a couple of years ago, the broad strategy for sustained improvement in the production of homegrown food was not a party political matter. We were all on the same side. Of course, mistakes were made and there was plenty of scope for criticism in detail, but the broad sweep of policy was something about which we were all agreed. It was important to the national interest as well as to the industry itself, for which continuity of policy and stability are absolutely crucial. It would be a shattering tragedy if the common


ground were to be broken. Worse, it would be a failure of political leadership.
In a mixed variety of ways, of which this scheme is only one, the Government are playing fast and loose with the structure and the long-term well-being of this great industry. Our farming has been nurtured over the decades, and the responsibility lies with this House to carry that work forward.
The House takes note of these new clauses. I am not advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion. I hope that the Government will be flexible in Committee. Certainly the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated flexibility and referred to the new clauses as deserving of the fullest consideration. I entirely agree. I am glad that the Committee is to be set up again to consider this matter. But let the Government take note of the deepening alarm and awareness on these Benches that the future prospects and prosperity of our agriculture lie today in unreliabe hands.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I believe I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was not present on the Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Yet he was keen to refer to the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read carefully the debate on Second Reading, he would have seen how these new clauses had come about. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw the allegation that there has been something underhand here.

Mr. Pym: I did not suggest that there was anything underhand whatsoever. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to put words like that into my mouth.

Mr. Roderick: Surely "underhand" is parallel to "back-door methods". The right hon. Gentleman suggested that back-door methods were being adopted. We made clear on Second Reading what we were attempting to do. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Back Benchers have no right to bring pressure on Administrations to bring forward

legislation, he is doing a disservice to this House.

Mr. Pym: I did not say that Members did not have the right to do that. I said that it was a reasonable proposition. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to try to put words into my mouth or to create an impression which is wholly contrary to what I said.

Mr. Roderick: Would I be wrong in interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as meaning that he felt that it was deplorable that Ministers should give way to and bring forward legislation as a result of such pressure? I believe that that is the only interpretation which can be put on his remarks.
On Second Reading we lamented the absence of provisions for some measure of justice for the near family of a tenant farmer on his death. Together with some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), I promised that if Ministers failed to bring in new clauses we would ensure that new clauses were introduced. In order to concentrate the mind of the Minister on this problem, we tabled such a new clause and were delighted to withdraw it when we saw that the Government had brought forward these new clauses. I wholeheartedly welcome the new clauses and thank my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Ministry for the work that they have done on producing and introducing them. I accept that it was not an easy task. The complexity of the situation is apparent from the fact that we have so many new clauses.
In commenting on one or two aspects of the new clauses, I do not wish to detract from their major purport in any way. However, I feel that we should consider going a little further.
We have come across cases of tenant farmers in serious ill-health hanging on because they were unsure of the future. I think that there is a strong argument for considering handing over the succession before death. If a farmer wishes to retire due to ill-health, we should consider allowing a near relative to take over at that stage.
I note that new Clause 10, in subsection (8)(b), refers to
the age, physical health and financial standing of the applicant


being taken into account by the Agricultural Land Tribunal. These are interesting points. I should like to know more about the strict criteria which will be applied in the age, financial standing and health of applicants.
In other spheres employers are compelled, for instance, to employ at least 3 per cent. of their work force from among registered disabled. Would a disabled near relative of a tenant farmer be disqualified? Are we to have one law in one area and another in this area? I do not think that health should be a barrier. I should like to know more about the Government's thinking behind introducing this feature into the new clauses.
What does "financial standing" mean? How much finance must a person possess in order to succeed? How old must he be? Is there to be a minimum or a maximum age? I can understand a minimum age being stipulated in certain circumstances. What would the minimum age be? What would the maximum age be?
I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that only two transfers should be allowed. This point arises from new Clause 8. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the average tenure being 40 years. But the two transfers in subsection (5)(f) do not refer to transfers from one generation to the next. The transfers could be to brothers. The whole operation could be finished within two or three years. In those circumstances, that provision would completely vanish. I cannot see how the situation is changed at the end of two transfers. Why should there be a qualification of that kind? We shall have to reconsider that provision.
New Clause 8 makes stipulations about relatives being at university, college or any other institution pursuing an agricultural course. As I understand it, there could still be qualification on the basis of a three-year agricultural course. That would be within the five-year qualification period. But I think that we are being somewhat narrow minded. Difficult situations will arise if we restrict it to agriculture.

Mr. Mark Hughes: As I understand the drafting, a degree course in agricul-

tural economics is not a sufficient qualification to be considered. That is ludicrous.

Mr. Roderick: That is an example of how difficulties will arise. I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought that matter to our attention. What is wrong with studying economics? Surely such study makes a better farmer.
I spent some years teaching in an area in my constituency, and I was privileged to teach up to O-levels one of the cleverest persons I ever taught. He lived on a poor little farm, and it was thought by his family that it would be better for him to leave school at 16 to work on the farm. I tried my best to persuade the family that he would be a much better farmer if he pursued his education as far as possible before working on the farm. It is sad that farming communities in rural areas should be deprived of the best expertise. The young man to whom I have referred is a most valuable asset to his community, but I believe he would have been an even greater asset if he had gone to university, regardless of the subject he chose to pursue.
I believe that agriculture is perhaps too narrow a study to lay down as a qualification and that three years is too short. Many college courses run for four years. That is especially true of sandwich diploma courses, for example. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham will elaborate on that.
On Second Reading of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and in Committee, Opposition Members kept saying that a much wider debate was necessary and that much more time was needed adequately to debate the issue. But they never said where they stood. I hope that they will come clean and tell us whether they are in favour of or opposed to this sort of legislation. I hope that they will come clean instead of nitpicking on various details.
The Opposition have said that the Bill is not the vehicle for introducing this legislation. They know that if we were to wait for what they would term the appropriate vehicle, we should have to wait a decade. There would be that delay because of the pressure on parliamentary time.
Opposition Members argue that the supply of tenant farms will dry up under this legislation. My experience is that the supply is drying up under existing legislation. On the death of a tenant the farm is often taken in by the landlord to be sold, not being made available to another tenant. The Opposition give the impression that there is a massive supply of tenant farms coming on to the market, but that is not the situation in my area. I cannot see that this legislation could stop what in fact does not exist.

Mr. Pym: I said that the supply of tenant farms is drying up because of the taxation that is being imposed on farmers and everyone else by the Government. That is why it is drying up. Landlords have been put in an impossible position.

Mr. Roderick: I believe that landlords are trying to make as much as they can by selling the farms. They are choosing to sell while prices are high. That is what is happening in my area.

Mr. Pym: Rubbish!

Mr. Roderick: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to examine the situation in my area. I am giving the House the evidence that has been presented to me.
Opposition Members say that the landlord-tenant relationship has been good. They say that in most instances landlords are sympathetic. I agree that they are in most cases, but are the Opposition saying that we do not need to legislate for the remaining cases? The argument that generally people behave responsibly, wisely and sensibly is true in most walks of life, but according to the Opposition's thesis it is not necessary to legislate on anything, merely to accept that everyone is sensible. We are legislating because certain people do not behave sensibly.
If the Opposition are so concerned about local authority smallholdings and the Minister's smallholdings, I invite them to table amendments. If they do so, they may enjoy a measure of support from some of my hon. Friends.
It is not true to suggest that we have plenty of farms coming on to the market. There is a shortage of tenant farms, and I hope that we shall afford a certain degree of protection by this legislation

for those who are well acquainted with such farms. I hope that it will be accepted in principle.

5.16 p.m.

Sir Timothy Kitson: I welcome the opportunity briefly to enter this debate. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for the way in which he made his introductory speech. He covered many of the most relevant points that are worrying all of us. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) and I generally serve at this time of day on the Public Accounts Committee. It is rare that I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in that Committee, but I must disagree with some of his comments in this debate.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said, landlords are not clawing back land to farm themselves or because they wish to sell; they are doing so because of the swingeing taxation that has been imposed upon them in recent years. We are worried that if this legislation is enacted in its present form it will further dry up the supply of tenanted land.
I represent the largest constituency in area in England. There are many small and large estates in my constituency, and the problem of hereditary tenancy has been discussed for many years. I have often found in Yorkshire, and in my part of the world generally, that on the larger estates the view has been taken that, where possible, sons of tenant farmers should be given prefential treatment and allowed to continue the tenancy on the death of their fathers. I know that that has not happened on every occasion, but it is a principle that is often adopted.
In many cases farmers have worked in partnership and many have devoted a substantial part of their working life to the tenant farms of their fathers. They have often assisted by intoducing additional capital into the farming enterprise. I believe that they should be allowed to succeed. If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor does not know where we stand, let me tell him that is my view. That also applies to brothers working in partnership.
The clauses will overcome cases of hardship that we have all seen in our own constituencies. Although the NFU argues that discussions have been taking


place between the CLA and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since as long ago as 1968, I am worried that not all the necessary preparation has been considered. I hope that substantial amendments to the clauses will be made in Committee. If that does not happen, anomalies will arise.
If the clauses are passed it will be the small estates which will run into difficulties. They have far less opportunity to manœuvre. As has been said, changes in our taxation system have dried up the market. The penal taxation that is imposed on landlords—for example, capital transfer tax—and the threat of a wealth tax has forced landlords to try to keep some liquidity within their estates to meet additional taxes. For that reason, in the past few years more and more land has been clawed back into the hands of the owner to be farmed by the owner. In some areas this has had an adverse effect on tenants' sons. I foresee that if these clauses are passed as drafted, future lettings will be at substantially increased rent.
Recently, between where I farm and the constituency of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), a farm was put up, the market value of which would have been, in the judgment of most people, about £15 an acre, but it was taken for £30 an acre. In my judgment, this was partly not because of the value of the land but partly because the tenant was of the opinion that, if these new clauses went through, he would have the continued possession that he could not expect from a new and normal letting.
I am sure that, if the clauses go through as they are, rents will be substantially increased—already they are at a high level in some parts of the country—and the expansion of food production will become more difficult because of the shortage of cash due to the higher rents that tenants have to pay. It also means that the farming ladder, which already has many rungs missing, will become increasingly difficult to climb. That is why so many young farmers are opposing the clauses. They have set their hearts on farming—their parents may have died—but they will find it almost impossible to pursue a farming career unless the Government look at the swingeing taxation on landlords.
If we are to accept in principle these new clauses, it is also difficult to accept as good any reason why smallholdings operated by the Minister and the local authorities should be excluded. My right hon. Friend dealt with this point, but I can see no good reason for excluding the holdings of county councils.
Many of us have had representations from the County Councils Association asking for exclusion, but why should the private owner be in a different situation from that of a county council or, for that matter, from that of the Minister himself, since he appears to be exempting the land that he administers? Some smallholdings have substantial capital investment in them, and the son of the tenant may have much larger capital investment in such a tenancy than he would have on land owned by a private landlord.
Will the Minister explain the position of Ministry of Defence land? Around Catterick, the Ministry of Defence owns a large number of farms and smallholdings. What is to happen to the sons of those tenants? For defence reasons, at present most of these smallholdings are let on a 364 days a year tenancy, which means that the occupants can be turned off at the end of any year. If we are to accept these new clauses, the position of these individuals must be carefully considered. The same applies to many other parts of England where families have been on defence land for years. They need safeguards under the Bill.
I have in my area many small estates of about 1,000 acres, some of them with only five or six holdings on them. How are these owners' sons to get an opportunity? I do not believe that they would be covered by the hardship provisions in the new clauses. For example, there will be cases where, perhaps a generation ago, the family decided not to continue to farm and its members have gone into other jobs, but where relatives now wish to return to start farming again, in order to bring the unit back into a viable holding. It will be very difficult for them to do so. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that point.
I am not as happy as the Secretary of State is about the land tribunals. I am not satisfied that they have enough experience or enough staff to look into some


of the difficulties with which they will be confronted. For example, I do not believe that they use their assessors as much as they should. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the membership of the tribunals and consider whether it is necessary for further appointments to be made and to insist that, instead of using them by chance, they should use assessors on practically every occasion when these hereditary tenancies are under consideration.
I hope that the Standing Committee will look at these new clauses very carefully and amend them considerably. I welcome the safeguards for the sons of tenants, but I question the wisdom of extending those safeguards to other dependants. I regret the Minister's decision at this stage to exclude his own smallholdings and those of county councils. I recognise the difficulties that a small landowner has at a time when the whole pattern of agricultural policy changes considerably as each decade goes by. I worry about the present taxation level on agriculture. And I hope that the Government will make the necessary amendments in Committee.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I give a broad welcome to the Government's proposals. I have long felt that tenants' sons in particular, although other close relatives, too, should be given more security than they now have. I would like to see Wales enjoying parity with Scotland in this matter, as in other constitutional issues. I do not hear many complaints from Scotland about the way in which the security given to tenants' sons there is working. It seems to have improved agriculture and the quality of farming, the holdings and the land in Scotland.
I want to give an example from my own neighbourhood of the need for this kind of legislation. It is of a farmer who became a tenant on his farm in 1938. His son began farming with him on the holding when he was still in school. For 30 years, the son was with his father full time, working on the farm. There was a very good relationship between tenant and landlord—one of mutual trust and respect. It was understood that the son would succeed his father. That assurance was given to the father by the landlord.

For the last eight years, after the father had retired, the son was working the holding full time and alone, maintaining his father's standards.
Then the landlord died and a little later the father himself died. That was in 1974. Within a fortnight of the father's death, the son was shocked to receive a notice to quit from the new landlord. There had been and could have been no complaint about the way in which the farm was being run. It was being very well farmed. Yet here was a man in his late forties thrown out in 1975 without another farm to go to, without another job to go to, and without another home to go to.
Since he was thrown out, the land has been used for wintering sheep, and I understand that the farm house may be used for a holiday home. There is an obvious defect in a law which allows a tenant to be treated with such harshness. It is due to be corrected, and this should be done quickly.
That is not to say that every tenant and every tenant's son should unquestionably have the right to guaranteed security of tenure, irrespective of other factors, such as good husbandry. The landlords and the sons of landlords have their rights, as do the sons of the tenants. The good landlord, I think everyone in agriculture accepts, is a fine institution and his rights must be safeguarded. What is needed is that the tenant should have the right to appeal to a tribunal which can decide whose hardship is the more severe—the tenant's or the landlord's. There could be a conflict of interest, for example, between the landlord's son and the former tenant's son, and the tribunal should be empowered in that case to do justice, giving the question of good husbandry high priority in its consideration.
Often the landlord is not a working farmer. The landlord may be a bank, syndicate, or big estate. There is then a strong case for giving the tenant farmer's son who works on the farm an absolute right to succeed. He should be denied that right only by a working farmer who urgently needs the farm for himself or perhaps a close relative who is or wishes to be a working farmer. Even then the tribunal should decide. It will not find striking a balance of hardship easy, but it is possible.
As the Secretary of State said, three factors among others should always be considered—an ability to farm well, an interest in farming well, and a personal connection with the farm in question. Farming friends of mine tell me that in such circumstances they see no objection to awarding a farm for a probationary period of, say, five years during which the tenant will be able to prove the adequacy of his standards of husbandry. There may be strong objection to that, but it should perhaps be considered.
We have heard talk of the fear of a growing shortage of farms to let and, because perhaps of the new security for tenants, it is alleged that the number of farms to let will become smaller. We have heard, too, of farms let as holdings by county councils. There is a connection between the two. We have heard that county council holdings will not be subject to the legislation. I think that they should be. But I also think that that there should be many more county council holdings. That is one way of obtaining more farms for young farmers.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether he agrees with the Minister's proposal to exclude smallholding land from the operation of the Bill? I was not sure what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Evans: Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that I do not approve of its exclusion. Such holdings should be included. There should, however, be far more of them. There are many more in the east of England than there are in my part of Wales.
I should like the Government to encourage the Dyfed council, for instance, to invest much more in the purchase of farms. It may be said that in a period of cuts in public expenditure this is a bad time to be making such a suggestion. However, the cost of land is less than it was two or three years ago. Therefore, from that standpoint, it is a good time for councils to purchase more land and to let it to young farmers, in particular. I hope that the Government will consider this matter and that the Secretary of State and the Treasury will co-operate with the county councils to ensure that there are more farms to further this necessary policy.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am glad that this matter is being discussed in the House. I should declare in advance that I have no personal interest in it. I am not a private tenant or a landlord, and I have no direct connection with England and Wales. My one justification for speaking is that I was involved with the introduction of similar legislation in Scotland seven or eight years ago, and therefore I may have relevant experience to contribute. Some of the arguments we have heard from the Opposition are not dissimilar from those which we heard when I was putting similar legislation through the House.
I welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation on this subject and to take the opportunity of doing so while the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was being considered. I repudiate in his absence—it is not my fault that he has left—the suggestion of the official spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), that there was something underhand or back-door about the way. Not only did he suggest it; he refused to apologise when the suggestion was repudiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). I repudiate it, too, and point out to the Opposition that, regardless of what the Government intended to do, a number of my hon. Friends tabled proposals on this subject. There has been no collusion whatsoever. On the contrary, we should welcome the fact that the Government take note of pressure from outside and inside the House and implement justice as quickly as possible. That is what they propose to do here. We have heard less nonsense today than we heard in Committee where there is perhaps less Press coverage.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was rather more subtle than some of his colleagues. He wove his way between the two positions even more skilfully than they have done in the past few weeks. In Committee, where we have been discussing clauses relating to holdings, arbitration, and so on, hon. Members opposite have been willing to wound but afraid to strike. The tenor of their arguments has been in defence of the landlord and against the interests of the tenant farmer.
I was therefore pleased to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson), because he is the first Member of the Tory Party who has come down on one side or the other on this issue. He said that he welcomed the proposed new clauses but wished them to be amended. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He is one honest man shining like a light in all the murkiness created by hon. Members opposite. I do not know whether that will do him any good in his party, but it may do him some good among the farming community and his constituents.
The argument deployed in the past and today has been related, first, to the proposals, and, secondly, to the method by which they have been introduced. Let me deal with the second point first. It is curious that this is not an unprecedented situation. It happens time and again in legislation that a fairly important matter of principle is introduced in Committee. We know the reason for it. The House is cluttered up with legislation and it is difficult to find time for it. I do not blame the Government for cluttering up the House with legislation. They had a lot to clear up from the four dreadful years from 1970 to 1974. All Governments have introduced important matters in Bills in Committee upstairs.
Secondly, there is a precedent for clauses of the type proposed by the Government even in agriculture legislation. In Committee I introduced for Scotland the same proposals as those put forward for England and Wales. I therefore hope that the Opposition will not continue to shelter behind the apparent procedural argument, as though the Government were harming the fabric of the House and bringing democracy into disrepute. The Government were right to do it in this way.
That deals with the second piece of nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Arrogant."] I am not being arrogant. It was a piece of nonsense, and hon. Members opposite know it. They have introduced such arguments to avoid saying whether they are on the side of the tenant farmer or on the side of the landlord. They wanted to please both. Basically they were on the side of the landlord but did not wish to be seen as not being friends of the tenant, so they put forward the procedural argu-

ment. That is the modest, humble, simple truth, and hon. Members opposite know it.
Will the Government's proposals destroy the landlord-tenant relationship? I agree that it will alter the relationship, but it requires alteration. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire has not told us what his position is. He did not say, in his long speech, whether he was for or against the new clauses. He made all sorts of criticism, saying that things should change. But has not yet said whether he is in favour of the principle.

Mr. Pym: I said that preferential arrangements for the son of a deceased tenant could be devised and that they would be useful and appreciated, as would a new procedure for the consideration of cases of genuine hardship. To that extent, we have something we should consider.

Mr. Buchan: The Opposition are saying again that there is a case for preferential treatment of the close relatives of tenant farmers and for a system to avoid hardship, but they do not say these should be introduced now and they will retain that attitude for as long as possible. Their position offends against the Sex Discrimination Act. Are they saying that a tenancy should pass to a son but not to a daughter, to a widower but not to a widow? Are they not aware of the work, skill and success of many women in farming? On one immortal occasion, I said by sheer accident—and unfortunately did not correct it in Hansard—that some of our best breeders are women. Some of our best farmers are women and the Opposition's attitude is reactionary and should be rejected.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire has still not said whether he supports the new clauses. I gave way to allow him to answer, but he has still not replied.

Mr. Pym: This is ridiculous. I made many comments about the new clauses. I think they need changing.

Mr. Buchan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the principle? A number of hon. Members may make comments and say that the clauses need changing. I have made many comments myself and would like to see some changes, but I accept the principle. Does he and do the Opposition? Are they


afraid of their farming constituents? I am willing to give way again if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to give a definite answer.
There is a curous contradiction in the Opposition's position. They say that they dislike this principle but then wish to extend it to tenants of county councils and the Ministry of Agriculture. They should realise that there is a difference between a landlord who is democratically elected and subject to scrutiny and control and one who is not subject to such scrutiny and control. The Opposition have a curious concept that all landlords are good. It is not true. The Opposition think that the judgment of landlords is perfect. It is not true. The Opposition object to tribunals deciding the matter and are therefore saying that the judgment of landlords is superior.
They poke fun at us for basing the principle on heredity. Far from that, I think there is a case for extending the new clauses to farm workers who have been on a farm for many years. The Opposition claim that the clauses will reduce the number of new entrants into farming. My suggestion would assist. If a skilled farm worker met the other requirements in the clauses, he could be helped by being given the tenancy. Would the Opposition support that? It would bring in new entrants to farming and ensure that the necessary skills were maintained.
The educational requirements in new clause 8(4) seem to be far too narrow. Would my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary qualify under these requirements? He is one of our most distinguished agriculturalists. He is a distinguished animals geneticist and the son of a farmer. He was brought up on a farm and knows farming inside out. Yet I am not sure that he would qualify. The requirements are too restrictive. If my hon. Friend does not qualify, they are certainly drawn far too closely.
We have had a reasonable discussion so far and I hope to hear more interesting things in the next one and a quarter hours. Perhaps someone from the Front Bench opposite may feel it in his heart to say whether the Opposition accept the principle of the new clauses and whether they are on the side of the landlord or of the tenant farmers.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The Minister prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not wish it to be thought that it was his view that the system of landlord and tenant had not been of benefit to the industry and the country. The theme of his speech was that these proposals would enhance the efficacy of that system. If the Minister had done his homework, he would not have introduced far-reaching proposals which will have such a major effect on one of the two limbs of the landlord-tenant system by means of a side wind or in new clauses in the Bill. A profound change is being made in the system which insidiously, but substantially, undermines the position and strength of the landlord as a supporter of the system.
The Government are conferring upon tenants the right to secure the succession to their sons and grandsons for 80 years or even 120 years of the right to farm that land. They are conferring on the tenant a virtual freehold. For the Minister to say that he does not wish to undermine the position of the landlord or effectively to alter the landlord-tenant system is disingenuous. Either his conversion to the principle behind these proposals has been superficial or he has not adequately done his homework.
The object is said to be the avoidance of hardship and the improvement of tenant farming. Yet we see that 11,000 tenants of councils and the Ministry are excluded from the scheme. If a man is a council tenant he is not, by some magical means, immune from hardship if he is unable to pass on his holding to his son. If a man is a tenant of the Ministry, he is not incapable of improving his farming technique. The only explanation from the Government for the exclusion of these tenants is that the landlords operate in the full view of public opinion and the tenants do not therefore need this sort of protection.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider two comments he made? First, good landlords already treat their tenants in the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend proposes that they shall be treated generally. Secondly, many county council holdings are so small that farmers have to work unduly hard to get a living from them. In that case, we should be careful


not to make the system permanent, because it imposes a hardship.

Mr. Mayhew: I concede, as has been conceded by my right hon. Friend, that this practice is followed by many good landlords, and I wish that to continue. The difficulty is that in seeking to make statutory what is good practice, in most cases the very system which it is desired should be upheld is undermined, and the result is the destruction of what is good in an attempt to impose statutorily measures which are intended to lead to an end which everyone wants.
There is great advantage in retaining for the landlord the ability and right to choose the tenant for his farm. The landlord is not disinterested in the future of his land or ignorant of the qualities of the farmer his land requires. To deprive the landlord of the opportunity and the right to choose the person who will farm his land is wrong and bad in the interests of farming.
The good landlord will wish to enable the tenant farmer's son to continue where he is an appropriate and suitable candidate, but to oblige him to do so where the Agricultural Land Tribunal says so is dangerous. In my experience the Agricultural Land Tribunal has never been called on—nor has any similar tribunal—to determine the right of rival applicants for a tenancy. Yet that is what these clauses propose. That is of profound significance. It is different from anything that the Agricultural Land Tribunal has ever been called on to do and it has no qualifications for so doing.
The arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) call for an answer. They are matters of significance pointing to a feature of the proposed legislation which does not seem to have been properly thought out. It is not surprising that the young farmers are against these proposals. One of the great dangers confronting farming today is the difficulty that young people have in getting their foot on the ladder. Although it is hard now, it will be harder still if these proposals are enacted for a young man who does not have the accident of birth to rely upon to get on to the ladder that leads to the tenancy of a holding of any size.
Why are these fundamental proposals introduced in this way? The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) does not provide a justification for this mode of legislating by saying that he relied upon it to bring about the same results in Scotland. If the Government are convinced that there is merit in these proposals, they have yet to explain why they did not introduce them in a more considered context. On the other hand, if they have only recently been converted to the proposals, the manner in which they have presented them to the House indicates that they have not done their homework.
My right hon. Friend was right in saying that far more time needs to be taken to consider these proposals. There are many aspects of them which are fundamentally dangerous to the system which the Government say that they wish to uphold, and they may do fundamental damage to agriculture. I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Minister will say that there are large areas of this legislation which the Government, on reflection, will reconsider.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I played some small part in the drafting of the original proposals which have now been withdrawn.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) both started by saying that they agreed that preferential treatment should be given to the working son of a farmer and that there should be machinery for dealing with hardship. It was from that starting point that I and my hon. Friends commenced when we examined the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We recognise that our prime duty as Members of Parliament is the redress of grievance, and in our constituencies and elsewhere we have come across clear examples of grievance.
I accept that hard cases make bad law, but I do not agree that the continuation of hard cases is an automatic condition of making good law. I know of a farming family in my constituency which has farmed a holding for 111 years. For the first 90 years there was a succession of landlords, and in the last 20 years the landlord has been changed three times—

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Taxation.

Mr. Hughes: It has nothing to do with taxation. I trust that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) will refrain from speaking in his usual ignorant manner on matters with which he is, as usual, unacquainted.
When the existing tenant died in his farmyard on a Sunday morning, his widow and son were given a notice to quit by a landlord whose interest in the farm had subsisted for less than two years, whereas their family continuity was 109 years.
It was to remedy that sort of inequality of treatment that we saw the need to do something. I am not sure that this is the correct way of doing it. It would be boastful to suggest that we had it perfectly right. We are, therefore, happy to withdraw the clause and are content with the substance of what the Government have put down. But that there is a widespread and clear need to deal with this grievance is common ground between all parties.
There have been a few cases in which the operation of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 has led to unnecessary hardship and distress. I accept that these are rare occasions and that in the great majority of instances there has been an amicable settlement of succession from father to son. My hon. Friends and I were—and the Government are now—determined that there should not be a statutory right of succession. That was the first solution that was thought of and it was rejected. That is not the solution that is proposed in the amendments. Legally, it would be easy to provide a statutory, absolute right of succession, but it would be unwise. We wanted to find a means of adjudicating the difficult and delicate relationship between a landlord and a potential tenant.
There seems to be an instrument at hand which can be used for that purpose. I have much greater faith in the ability of the Agricultural Land Tribunal than have certain Conservative Members. Its working in the North of England and in some parts of Wales has led me to believe that this task is well within its existing competence and experience. One accepts that sometimes it will not come to the

same conclusion as oneself or as the tenant or the landlord. However, its competence is such that its judgment will be superior to that of the landlords' agents.
There is one problem which varies from one part of the country to another concerning the institutional rather than the personal landlord. In the County of Durham, for example, the Church Commission, the Dean and Chapter and the National Coal Board are three of the four largest landlords. Here the power of the agent is crucial. There is no personal relationship between the landlord and the tenant. The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, will know from his experience in North Yorkshire some of the difficulties which exist with institutional landlords where personal contact is absent.
I turn to a matter which was raised by the hon. Member and on which I find myself in total agreement with him. After reading the new clauses I am concerned with the position of the owner of the very small estate and his children who may have a very legitimate claim and who, from my reading of the clauses, do not appear to be covered. Take the case of a landlord who went away to the war between 1939 and 1946. For various reasons the landlord when he returned did not want to take up farming. Now his son may have been through agricultural college and may be acting as a manager on someone else's farm. In due course the old family home, which migh have been owner-occupied up until 1939 will become vacant. That son should be given an equal chance to undergo the relative hardship test. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary of State will say whether this point is covered or whether an amendment is needed.
I come to the exclusion of county council smallholdings and other statutory holdings. I would be happier about their exclusion if I were convinced that the maintenance of these tenancies on the lowest rungs of the ladder—because clearly that was what the county council smallholdings were established for—would remain open as the former tenants moved up the ladder. However, since in many parts of the country the county council holdings have been amalgamated to provide totally viable family farms in their own right, their exclusion demands more


justification than we have so far heard. I would be content to see a modification of the application of the tribunal to county council holdings because of the rôle that these holdings were created to play in terms of agricultural advancement. The county council smallholdings of under 50 acres must be kept free to enable a continuity of access into the industry from the hind or from among the labour.
I would be happier to rely upon the public spirit and good judgment of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and his successors were it not for the fear that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) or one of his ilk might at one time be in that position. I would be much happier to protect the tenant farmer from the vagaries of Tory Ministers of Agriculture than to leave him in his present condition under these proposals. I see no adequate reason as yet why the Minister of Agriculture's holdings, when he acts as landlord, should be excluded.
On the question of the main proposals—in which I accept that my proposals, ill-drafted though they were, played some part—I agree that there was a series of grievances and that we had to see how these could be remedied. The Agricultural Land Tribunal seemed to provide the appropriate solution. I shall be interested to know how those who have an interest are to be defined. There may be those in this House who believe that the efficacy of primogeniture is still unsullied. I am not certain that I would number myself among them.
There is a fundamental difference between giving preferential treatment to a son and giving it to a near relative. But after much thought I have come to the conclusion that to restrict it to the son, whether it be the eldest son or a younger son, and to exclude adopted children, sons-in-law, brothers and so on—those to whom in the reality of family relationship there has been a filial or paternal relationship—will be quite wrong. That was why I included grandsons and granddaughters in the original clause. I regret that they have been withdrawn, but the definition of "near relative" needs to be much wider than to include just the son. The claim of the hand who has worked on the farm, or even of the

bailiff, also needs to be considered. I have no more faith in the ability of the eldest son to produce a good landlord than in his ability inevitably to produce a good tenant. This must not be a statutory matter; it must be arbitrated.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). I find his argument about County Council smallholdings rather convoluted. On his main point, it is one thing to say that we should seek to safeguard succession and avoid hardship but it is quite another to do it without upsetting the whole system.
I declare an interest, as I did in Committee, as the landlord of a tenanted agricultural property—I hope a good one. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said so strongly that the real reason for this system breaking down today has nothing to do with the landlord-tenant relationship and everything to do with the imposition of taxation, which will become more and more onerous.
We had the usual diatribe from the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), but the Scottish system has not been in operation long enough for the real effect of the new forms of taxation to be felt.

Mr. Buchan: I do not accept, nor do most people who know the problem, that taxation has the effect that the hon. Member suggests. There are other reasons. But we have double experience. We had the system that the clauses now propose between 1949 and 1958 in Scotland. We then had a Tory interregnum up to 1968, since when we have again operated the system in these clauses, and there has been no real change in the flow of new farms for lease. The NFU in Scotland has assured me that it can detect no differences under the different operations.

Mr. Benyon: Views differ on that. It would be generally agreed by those with an unbiased view that, in the words of the Scottish law, it is "not proven".
The new clauses will not give us what we all want—more farms to let. If the landlord-tenant system is to go on, that


is what we need. The clauses will make matters worse. The system itself is finely balanced and, as the hon. Member for Durham implied, it is an argument between arbitrary and statutory.

Mr. Mark Hughes: May we get the wording precisely? My word was not "arbitrary" but "arbitrated".

Mr. Benyon: I accept that.
The Minister must tell us what advice he would give if he were a professional adviser to a landowner with a farm to let. Would he be able to avoid saying, "As things stand, the price of let land has dropped considerably even over the last few months as a result of this legislation and the converse is also true: in this situation the price of land with vacant possession will rise proportionately even higher?" That is also happening at the moment.
Second, could he avoid saying to this mythical landlord, "You will be losing control under these clauses for about one hundred years."? The period must be something like that. Would he not agree with a number of other hon. Members that it is essential to rectify this fine balance by giving some encouragement to landlords to let their land? That is what is missing from the clauses.
The first possible encouragement is relaxing taxation, particularly capital transfer tax. The Minister would do well to pressurise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether some system could be evolved which related more nearly for tax purposes to the investment value of let land. Landlords and estates who adopt a low rent policy should be recognised in some way in taxation, because they are getting less from their assets. There is a possibility of such a system to give landowners an incentive to let their land.
Second, there should be a requirement that those eligible for succession, whatever the clauses decide, can take succession only when the existing tenant retires. In that way, the situation mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), in which a tenant goes on and on because he does not want to give up the holding, could be avoided. That would also involve suc-

cession by agreement. Perhaps we could consider that in Committee.
Third, I part company with the hon. Member for Durham on the question of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should consider whether it is the right body to consider difficult questions of succession. I accept that it has done a very good job, but these are much more ticklish matters and I should be happier if they were handled on a more judicial and less local footing. When it comes to knotty problems of assessing the personality of the landlord or the tenant, they will be difficult to solve on a local basis.
Fourth, something should be written into the clauses to deal with the succession of landlords' sons when, after a farm has been let because the landlord did not wish to farm it himself, the son wishes to take over at the end of the tenancy. That is a difficult matter and could be settled by compensation so that the tribunal decided that the landlord's son should be allowed to take over.
When it works properly, the landlord-tenant system has no rival. It confers great advantages on agriculture as a whole. But, as with all long-term arrangements, it requires trust, confidence and a sense of fairness to make it work. At the moment, the clauses do not provide those conditions. That is why they must be changed before the Bill becomes law.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I must first declare an interest, in that I am a tenant farmer. I have been so since 1959, when I took over the tenancy of a farm from my mother, who had previously taken it over from my father. A good deal has been said about expertise today, and perhaps I can claim some as a tenant farmer. I have been a tenant of two estates and I think that I have some practical knowledge of the day-to-day workings of the system.
I could not have been a farmer at all but for the landlord-tenant system as we practise it. That system has been responsible for one of the finest systems of land tenure in the world and is certainly an example to Europe. But we are all agreed that the system is not working very well. I have here some figures


taken from a Ministry publication called "Farm Rents" and published by ADAS. They show that in the year to May 1975, out of a sample of 26,000 farms totalling 3·75 million acres, representing about 30 per cent. of the tenanted land, only 0·2 per cent. were re-let on the open market by tender and only 2 per cent. by agreement—mostly, although the statistics do not bear this out, to limited classes such as the sons of previous tenants. The figures for 1975 are bound to be even lower.
The 1948 Act, conceived no doubt in good will, is no longer working. Once security of tenure is given to the tenant, the landlord obviously will take every opportunity of taking his farm in hand. By re-letting it he loses it under the current law for at least the lifetime of that tenant.
By the very nature of farming it is essential that there should be some security of tenure. I do not argue about that. One cannot farm on a five-year basis; one must see a long-term programme ahead. I suppose that the tenure of one's lifetime was considered reasonable in the circumstances under the taxation that prevailed in 1948, and subsequent Conservative Governments have not seen fit to reverse that. However, the fact of the matter is that the pressure of taxation, combined with the existing security of tenure, has been enough to drive tenanted farms off the market.
If the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) had, as I have, been to "tender" days on farms, along with 100 or 200 other potential tenants, knowing that the rent one would have to pay to get into the farm would be twice the economic rent, and knowing that the chances of expanding one's business as a tenant farmer were almost non-existent, he might have had the open-mindedness to open up the whole system and not to close it even more tightly.
It is, perhaps, sad that because of the lifespan on which security of tenure depends it is upon the death of the tenant that the landlord gives notice. The tear-choking examples given by the hon. Members for Durham and Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) occur at a time when, statutorily, a landlord is required to give notice within a given period—I believe that it is five or six months.
One would have thought that after the operation of the 1974 Rent Act, under which thousands and thousands of furnished flats were taken off the market simply because of an increase in the security of tenure, Labour Members would have learned the lesson. Now they are increasing it yet again, to a century or more for farms. It is no good hon. Gentlemen shaking their heads. It is three full generations. I took over my farm at the age of 21. My son is still only 10 years old, and by the time he has a family it could well be 100 years between my taking over the tenancy of my farm and my grandson dying. There is nothing imaginative about that. It is quite feasible.
What has happened? Thousands of acres are being farmed today not by the landlord or by the tenant but in partnerships—legal devices to get round existing legislation. Farms which should be on the open market and available to rent are not. Hundreds of farmers who should be tenants in their own right are merely acting as managers, with fewer rights than they would have had as tenants under the old law.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman said that he took over his farm at the age of 21. He did not buy it. Did he inherit the tenancy from his father?

Mr. Wiggin: If the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) had listened—

Mr. Buchan: If so, why does he deplore our ensuring that this can happen for others?

Mr. Wiggin: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my opening remarks he would have heard me declare that I took over the tenancy from my mother, who took it over from my father. I have a landlord who takes a perfectly sensible and helpful view on these matters and who has allowed, by usage, almost every farm on his estate to be taken over by competent sons. Why legislate? There is no need to. If hon. Gentlemen had understood a little more the working of the countryside and had ceased to reveal their constant ignorance, as they did in Committee, we might get a little further.
The old tenant, even as long ago as 1875, enjoyed a measure of security of tenure. He had an automatic entitlement


to be compensated for residual benefits of work done on his holding. Now, as mere farm managers, the same people are but employees. It is this matter to which the Government should direct their attention. They should not make it harder and harder for landlords to let.
The Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs has written twice to us. It has so reserved its position that it would, perhaps, be unfair to quote the letters direct. But they make it clear that young people are ambitious. They are anxious for the agriculture industry to prosper. I invite the Minister to thumb through the British Farmer & Stockbreeder and to look at the column headed "Farms to Rent". Month after month he will find that there are no farms to rent, because they have been taken off the market.
If I gave up my farm I believe that my landlord would be well justified in selling my holding, because, as trustees, landlords now have to find a tranche of capital transfer tax within the next few years. My landlord has handed over to trustees to protect the estate against the ravages of taxation. I am not in any way involved in the management of the estate, and it would be wrong for me to become involved in an argument, but from the way they run their affairs one can see the pressures that bear upon disinterested landlords, because they are not interested in anything except preserving the entity of the estate and having land to let. That will become harder and harder for them.

The question of rent reviews has been swept over lightly, but if my landlord takes me to arbitration, which he is perfectly entitled to do, he will quote the most recently freely-tendered rents in or near the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, (Sir T. Kitson), with whose speech I largely disagreed, made a valid point about the high rents that are being tendered. It is those rents that will be used as a yardstick to fix everyone else's rents. This measure will cost the tenant farmer millions in increased rents in the near future. The entire cause of this will be the clauses that we are rightly debating this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter, because if he has proposals to change the arbitration proce-

dures, they do not appear on the Order Paper at present, and if they do not, sitting tenants will suffer very badly.

I have been a branch chairman and a county vice-chairman of the National Farmers' Union. I am deeply disappointed in that union's attitude to this measure. I believe it was its prompting in the original circular that reminded Labour Members of the possibility of obtaining some support for this measure. I claim to have some knowledge of how the National Farmers' Union works. I am far from convinced—I have been a member all my working life—that that organisation has really and truly put to its members the desperate implications of what we are doing tonight.

Mr. Roderick: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Young Farmers' Clubs organisation has put it to its members?

Mr. Wiggin: I keep giving way to hon. Gentlemen who do not listen to what I have said. I said earlier in my remarks that the Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs were not yet firmly agreed and had not passed a resolution. The National Farmers' Union has on many occasions claimed to have done this, but I, as an ordinary member, certainly have no knowledge of it. Would hon. Gentlemen like to go back to what the NFU said in 1968? It has changed its mind, without consulting its members, and has made a great mistake.
I had always believed that the NFU stood for two things—first, that it was not a tenant's union but a farmers' union and, secondly, that it believed in the right of property. To take away from a landlord the right to enjoy his property for a century or more cannot be said to be respecting the rights of property in any way. I accept the significant promise made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to review all this legislation. I shall read into that my own interpretation.
However, I am wholeheartedly opposed to these proposals. They are totally damaging to the system and expensive for the tenant, they will restrict new entrants into the industry and, above all, create lasting bad blood in many parts of the English countryside.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I hesitate to claim any great knowledge against the background of knowledge and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), which he has so ably described. I would not dare to claim any wisdom against the accusations and counter-accusations and ignorance that have been flung from one side of the House to the other and back again. However, on the other hand, I declare, like my hon. Friends, an interest both as a tenant and a landlord, albeit in Scotland.
I want to take up one matter raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). He said that there had not been any complaints from Scotland about the amendments to the law for which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) claimed credit. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) that it is early days yet. What was relevant before the interregnum that ended in 1968, in terms of the situation in Scotland, is certainly not relevant to the present situation, given the considerable increase in taxation.
As I am declaring an interest in this question, I can say as a landlord that in Scotland I shall never again let a farm that comes into hand, for the reasons already described by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. It is very unlikely that any farm will come into hand. I suspect that my approach is not unique. I suppose that if I were to stretch a point, for some reason, I would be prepared to let a farm—perhaps an outlying farm—but, if I did so, it would only be to a spinster of a very particular type who, in addition, and in any case, was well past childbearing age and had no brothers or sisters.
The Secretary of State for Wales rightly said that the relationship between the tenant farmer and his family and the landlord is peculiarly close. Because it is so close, the House must be very careful about the way it intervenes in that relationship. Neverthless, I am prepared to accept that there is a case for amending legislation. Some of my hon. Friends from some parts of the country, because of the rare and occasional case brought to their notice, believe that that is so. The National Farmers' Union believes, rightly

or wrongly, that it is necessary for amending legislation to be introduced. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out that the provisions of the 1948 Act have occasionally led to hardship.
I believe that if there has to be legislation it would be much better if it were introduced after the sort of review suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). Further, no personal evidence of the need for a change has been brought to my notice in my constituency. I have received no letters either in support of or in opposition to a change in legislation, but a number of farmers individually have expressed doubts and fears about these proposals.
Therefore, amending legislation must be seen against the background of a land tenure system which, broadly, works well, which benefits agriculture, which is helpful in terms of food production, and which is of benefit to tenant and landlord alike. Legislation, if there has to be any, must be a compromise, taking adequate account of the varying interests involved and of a broadly successful system.
The Secretary of State for Wales described the Government's attempts to find what he called a just balance. I believe that the Government's new clauses are neither a just balance nor a reasonable compromise. Instead, they are another very big nail in the coffin of the landlord-tenant system. They may indeed bring cheer to the hearts of the left wing of the Labour Party, just as the increases in capital taxation have done, but I believe that these proposals are a matter for sorrow and foreboding in tenants, actual and potential, as well as in private landlords.
The Secretary of State for Wales said that he thought that landlords' fears would prove to be exaggerated. I doubt it. The proposals treat landlords as incompetent persons. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) said that these provisions were introduced to cope with landlords who are not sensible, but the provisions cope with landlords of all sorts and kinds. The proposals assume that landlords will act in an overbearing way, which is almost entirely untypical. The proposals conclude that the landlord's right to choice and decision for tenant and tenancies should be removed.
Perhaps one should not have too much sympathy with the landlord, in spite of the temptations offered to us by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. It is for the tenant farmer that we should have greater sympathy. I believe that he will come off worst. In the short term I am convinced mat there will be fewer lettings. If that is so, the rent for new lettings will be higher. That, in turn, will mean that the rent for sitting tenants will be fixed at a higher level.
It will be not so much the private landlord as the institutional landlord who will take advantage of this new situation. Already the institutional landlord is governed more by cold economic logic than is the private landlord, who has a great concern for the unity and fabric of the countryside.
However, in the long term, in any case, if we carry on as we are, there will be only institutional landlords or owner-occupiers. Private landlords will take land in hand or they will sell it. If there are only institutional landlords, again, their economic approach will speed farm amalgamation. That will mean faster change in the social structure of the countryside and still fewer farms to let and fewer farms in total. In turn, that will mean that many budding farmers will not find a tenancy. Alternatively, they will have to invest their money in owner-occupation, and that will mean that they will be able to farm many fewer acres. If there are more potential owner-occupiers, the price of land will rise still more. It therefore follows that there will be a demand for higher farm prices to justify the capital expenditure, to the ultimate disadvantage of the consumer.
I am painting a gloomy picture because I believe that it could result from these proposals. Luckily, there is still time for the design of a compromise that will not have the effects I have described. The Standing Committee has a hard task, as it will be building on pretty difficult foundations. If it does not achieve success it will be a sad day for agriculture but it will be saddest of all for the tenant farmer or the man who wants to become a tenant farmer.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I have to declare an interest, not because I am the owner of land, nor because I am a tenant, but because I have acted for owners and for tenants. I have been an arbitrator, I have been on the Lord Chancellor's panel of arbitrators, and I have appeared before agricultural land tribunals—so I suppose I have a middle interest and possibly I see both sides.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) on his moderate and sensible speech, which was, as always, full of knowledge of the countryside, which is so lacking in much that we hear from Labour Members.
I must admit that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) brings out the worst in me. He always accuses Opposition Members of being the landlord's men. I believe he still thinks that the landlord rides around on a black stallion, with a whip in his hands, driving the tenants off his holdings. Be that as it may, I have personally seen real hardship experienced in my own family, when a close relative of mine—an inheriting son of the third generation—was turned out of a farm. I do not believe that this necessarily makes a good case of changing the law, and I do not believe that the provisions should have been introduced in this way.
As I have already said, I believe that the overhaul of the Agricultural Holdings Act is long overdue. By introducing these clauses we shall make a real muddle of the Agricultural Holdings Acts. There is no doubt about that.
I cannot follow the clauses. I am a bit rusty about the Agricultural Holdings Acts but I am convinced from consultations with my partners and my rivals in business that there is no doubt that they feel that without considerable amendment some of these clauses will lead to confusion, which is the last possible thing we want to see in our agriculture.
I believe that hardship should be and still could be paid for in cash. There are certain occasions when the landlord is able to take land in hand and pays up to, I think, five years' rent. A similar arrangement—especially in view of how


widely the clauses are drafted at present—could have settled many hardship cases, without introducing this inheritance procedure. The Minister has shown a woeful weakness, because he did not want to introduce this legislation in this way at all; he said so. However, like Pilate, who knew what was the right thing to do, he gave way to the clamour behind him and at his side.
The National Farmers' Union is partly to blame. In my area the Norfolk NFU has not been able to consult its constituent branches. However, I attended my own branch, which was completely divided about what was the best thing to do. The members knew that some of their neighbours had sons who would like to inherit, and therefore they felt sympathetic towards them. However, they also knew that there were many young men and young managers—we must consider carefully the managers on some of the bigger farms—who were aching to get farms of their own.
The other day I received a letter from a young manager who made a major speech at the Oxford Farming Conference. He told me that he had given up all hope of ever getting a farm for himself. On balance, this measure will do more harm than good, although I appreciate the hardship cases and have had real experience of them.
The real trouble, and the nigger in the woodpile—if one is allowed to use that phrase, in view of the various discrimination Acts—is taxation, as was mentioned in the superb speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). Taxation is driving the smaller estates either to sell or to take land in hand to get the benefit of the capital transfer tax. That means that less land becomes available to let. Moreover, there is very little land to let at present. I believe that the source will be dried up completely. Taxation is destroying agriculture in many ways that we know about, and is driving the ownership of agricultural land into the hands of the pension funds.
In my view the Crown, the Church and others who have been landlords for hundreds of years generally have a pretty good way of dealing with their tenants and some very sound agents. However, in my constituency there are several

villages which are totally owned by pension funds. We have an absentee landlord, absentee tenants in some cases, and an absentee agent living in London. I do not think that does any good at all. Together with taxation, these provisions will drive more and more land into the hands of the pension funds. Young men will be denied the chance to make a start and the right to farm on their own. I am absolutely convinced that these provisions will drive up rents.
Over the past months I have been negotiating with several tenants on estates. They have come prepared with this knowledge, knowing that because they will be given security for their sons, they will have to pay more by way of rent. There is no doubt about that.
As has already been mentioned, I cannot possibly agree that statutory smallholdings and the Minister's own land should be excluded from these causes, if we are to have them. How can any Member go to the tenant of a 100-acre farm and say "We have decided that your son will not inherit" and then go next door to the 1,000-acre farmer and say, "Your son can interit". I do not believe that can possibly be done. I do not believe it is right.
I was a member of a smallholdings committee for 21 years. The discussions do not take place at public hearings. Naturally the discussion as to whom one lets a smallholding to is a private matter. However, I know perfectly well that we always set our faces against saying in advance that we would let to the son of a tenant. Often we did so, but that does not mean to say that we always did so. I cannot believe that it is right to exclude the statutory smallholdings, of which there are 10,333 tenants—according to the last report, which goes up to 31st March 1974—and the 907 tenants belonging to the Minister himself. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I believe that the Minister's statement is completely indefensible.
I ask the Minister who is to wind up the debate whether hardship also means hardship for the landlord's son, who may have been trained and waiting for a particular holding on his estate. If that is so we should know about it. Will the Minister make clear to his own Back-Benchers—not those who are present now


but those who were present during Question Time and appeared to be crying for his blood—that food will be forthcoming from our land only if it is properly paid for and the farmer can get a decent living from the land?
All our present taxes and regulations interfere with the production of food from our land, and it is that which we must constantly bear in mind when considering these new clauses.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I have no direct interest to declare in this matter, although as the son of a late landlord and farmer I have some familiarity with the problem that we are discussing. The problem of the right of a farming tenant's son to inherit is by no means new. There has long been a feeling in the part of the country which I represent and from which I come that, especially where farms are small and there are many tenanted farms, tenants' sons should have a right of appeal against notice to quit on the death of the father or on relinquishment of the tenancy by the father.
On the other hand, it is true that sons have, in the main, been given preferential treatment when a farm tenancy has come to an end. Indeed, in many cases it is unthinkable that a son should not continue in the tenancy of a farm which his father has farmed for many years.
Today, however, there are changes in the agricultural scene. Private landlords are becoming smaller, and corporation landlords, if one may so call them, are becoming larger and greater in number. Moreover, taxes on capital are making it increasingly likely that small private landlords—and perhaps even larger landlords—want to take more land into their own hands to farm it themselves.
In the main, I believe, there have been relatively few cases of hardship. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) cited one case of hardship, but I believe that for only one case of actual hardship there have probably been many more cases in which an individual has feared hardship and what might happen to him. We must bear that also in mind.
I hope that the passing of the Bill with these new proposals will not lead to an increase in that fear because of a danger that more tenants will be given notice to

quit. In my view, that could well happen. In the past, private landlords may have given the benefit of the doubt to sons of tenants, because of possible hardship, because of personal friendliness and the need to keep well in with tenants, and because of the need to maintain a harmonious atmosphere in the countryside, but now, if we have a statutory arrangement whereby a tenant can dispute a notice to quit, will landlords, especially corporate landlords, behave in the same way? In many cases, landlords may themselves wish to get hold of a tenancy if they can reasonably do so, as it will mean a substantial financial advantage to them, so is it not more likely that there will be more notices to quit under this legislation? I can well see that happening.
No doubt the agricultural land tribunal, or whatever body is finally given the task of deciding these cases, will have to keep that aspect of the matter in mind, but I fear that one result of our passing this measure will be not to reduce but to increase the fear of dispossession—or, rather, the fear among sons of not being allowed to inherit tenancies.
Next, I urge that the ALT, or whatever body is decided upon, should have a code of practice drawn up for it so that everyone in the industry will know the criteria for judging or defining the level of hardship and also the criteria for the required qualifications. That is most important, since we shall otherwise inject a new sense of uncertainty into the industry. A father must know what are the right qualifications for his son to continue in the farm. For example, must the son have had practical experience on the particular farm? That is one qualification that the Minister must clarify. Will it be tied to learning his trade on that farm?
I am sure that it will be much the best if a code of practice is drawn up after the Bill is passed, with a view to reducing the area of uncertainty that is bound to develop when a measure of this kind is enacted. Another area of uncertainty concerns the restraint that will be put on a tenant's son who inherits. Will he be required to continue to farm the property and not, after two or three years, to put it into the hands of a manager—which would be grossly unfair to a landlord who was himself wanting to put his own son


into the farm? What guarantee will the tribunal require that the son will farm the land properly for a considerable period ahead? That also must be decided.
I come next to the deterrent effect against the letting of farms. As time goes on and as taxation grows, especially as the capital transfer tax begins to bite, there will inevitably be a greater deterrent on the private landlord against letting farms if he can possibly avoid it. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who spoke so well and with such knowledge, rightly pointed out—though, admittedly, it was difficult for him to point it out—that there must be some incentive for the landlord, especially the small landlord, to let some of his land. In my view, there should be a similar category of small working landlord, as there is for the small working farmer, with taxation advantages. Why should not the small working landlord have the advantages in capital transfer tax and other taxes which the working farmer may have advantage from?
The capital transfer tax has a direct bearing here. I understand that by passing the Bill as proposed we shall diminish some of the interest of a landlord in his own land and thereby diminish its value and reduce his likely assessment for capital transfer tax, but at the same time we shall conversely increase the tenant's liability for capital transfer tax. In a Written Answer given by a Treasury Minister on 2nd February 1976 it seems perfectly clear that if the tenant has
an interest in a tenancy which is assigned"—
to him—
it may constitute a transfer of value for capital transfer tax purposes."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 457.]
It should be made clear to tenants who want their sons to inherit—and perhaps their grandsons, too—that in so doing they will increase the liability for capital transfer tax on the assignment of their tenancy. This could well be a substantial liability if the farm is of any size.
I believe that the landlord-tenant system is continuing to serve the interests of agriculture in this country. But unless these new proposals are given very careful consideration in Committee, unless the Government are prepared to listen to the advice given in this debate and amend some of the clauses of the Bill where

necessary, very great harm may be done to the whole system.
If, on the other hand, the Government are prepared to take the well-considered and experienced advice offered by my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite, I believe that these proposals may work to the advantage of the system as a whole. But something substantial must be done at the same time to encourage landlords to let their land to farming tenants and to counterbalance the disincentives to do so which will follow if the measure is passed as it is at present.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said that he hoped the Government would heed the advice which has been given during the course of this debate. This debate has provided the Government with a good deal of good advice. I was a little surprised at one stage to hear the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) accuse us on these Benches of not speaking up for agriculture. He seems totally to have forgotten that this debate is taking place only because of requests made from this side of the House.
I declare my interest in that I am a tenant farmer of land of which I am a part owner, the remainder being in the ownership of my family. My family do not own any other land apart from that which I farm.
I should like to ask a question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) posed earlier, namely, where the Minister is and why he has not attended this debate. I should have thought that in view of the major rôle that he has played in the various discussions which have gone on behind the scenes in producing these new clauses, the least he could do would be to listen to part of this debate. I hope the Whip will tell him that we are dissatisfied with this situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I feel that I must respond immediately to that observation. The hon. Member will, no doubt, appreciate that the day of the annual price review is enormously full for


any Minister of Agriculture. The hon. Gentleman will recognise also that the Opposition were given advance notice of the difficulties in which my right hon. Friend would find himself today. It is because of the commitments which automatically ensue from his statement this afternoon that my right hon. Friend has regrettably not been able to be with us.

Mr. Jopling: My right hon. Friend and I have been in the Chamber during the whole of this afternoon and neither of us has received such a notice. Of course, we understand that this is a full day for the right hon. Gentleman, but we would have expected him to be here for at least part of the time.
To move on, I think the House has noted that in these new clauses we are debating major changes in the law of property. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) said that as a consequence of these clauses no longer can a landlord make a contract for a tenant to farm for his lifetime, which may be 50 years or more, because such a period would not be regarded as long enough. There may well be—indeed, I believe there is—certain justification for taking that view in some circumstances. But hon. Members, particularly on these Benches, have agreed that there is very little justification for introducing these proposals in this form. So many of my hon. Friends—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), with all his experience—have made the point that that there is need for a major review of the law on agricultural holdings. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a statement on the attitude of the Government to such a major review and major rethinking on agricultural holdings legislation. It has been kicking around in Whitehall for a long time. It is true to say that these proposals constitute a tinkering around with the law and that the time is long overdue to have a major reform.
I have asked myself what is the effect of these proposals on the landlord-tenant system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said that it is a marvellous system. There is no doubt that over the years it has done the industry and housewives very well indeed.
What we have to consider is whether these proposals will cause fewer farms to come on to the market in the future, and too late. Many hon. Members have said that many fewer farms are coming on to the market because of the taxation system. The effects of the capital transfer tax have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), who accepted that the number of farms coming on to the market was already drying up. I think that he attributed this largely to the taxation system.

Mr. Roderick: I did not mention taxation.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman says he did not mention taxation. That may be true, but I think he will agree that the gist of his argument was that the taxation system has caused fewer farms to come on to the market.

Mr. Roderick: To get the record straight, I must emhpasise that I did not mention taxation. My argument was that farms were sold but that they were not coming on to the market as tenanted farms.

Mr. Jopling: I thought the hon. Member was implying that landlords were having to sell farms because of the ravages of taxation. If I read the wrong meaning into the hon. Gentleman's argument, I apologise and I take back what I said.
The question is, will these new measures accelerate the present trend? My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West is a prominent member of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers. Today I received a letter from the chairman of the Executive Committee of the CAAV saying:
I do wish to point out to you that the proposed new legislation on succession right in farm tenancies will even further reduce the supply of vacant land for letting and this is the unanimous view of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers.
In view of that letter, I should think the Government would find it very hard to justify their statement—reported in column 443 of the Hansard Report of the Committee proceedings—that these measures will not cause the supply of farms to dry up. What landlord will be prepared to see farms pass out of his


control for a period of up to a century? The great danger is that these provisions will accelerate the present trend.
I had to smile when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales said that he hoped that these proposals would strengthen the landlord-tenant system. I notice that very few other Members in the House have said that they thought there was any chance of these proposals strengthening the landlord-tenant system. As for the general effect of these measures on agriculture, I believe that if the supply of farms to rent is allowed further to dry up, this must have an adverse effect on food production in this country. Therefore it must be the housewife who will suffer.
Our attitude in approaching these matters does not, as some hon. Members have suggested, come from a partisan view of being in favour of the landlord or of the tenant. We think only of what is in the interests of the agriculture industry as a whole and in the interests of the housewife. If farms to let become fewer there will be fewer tenants without a farming background coming into the industry. That would be a tragedy for the industry. Over the centuries many of the great agricultural improvers have been tenant farmers from outside the industry, from urban backgrounds. They made major contributions to the industry. There is a danger that new thoughts and new outside interests might be prevented from coming into the industry.
Many hon. Members have referred to the working of the Agricultural Land Tribunals. Several hon. Members have suggested that their work is unsatisfactory. Others, and I believe the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) was one of them, suggested that most of the problems could be dealt with by Agricultural Land Tribunals. Other hon. Members made similar points, but I thought that on the Government side there was a blind view in favour of the operation of the tribunals. Only today I received from the Minister an answer to a Question which shows how extraordinarily few are the occasions on which the tribunals meet. Over the past five years the tribunals in Wales met only 21 times, in the South-West of England only 22 times and in the North-East 27 times. In some parts of the country

they are very good and well thought of but in other parts they are less well thought of.
I spoke at the weekend to two ex-presidents of the Association of Agricultural Valuers. They agreed that the agricultural land tribunals will be unsuitable vehicles to deal with some of the particularly delicate decisions that will have to be taken as a result of the proposals in the clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) referred to that today, and it seems clear that something will have to be done to strengthen the tribunals. One way of doing that would be to enact the provisions of Schedule 9(13)(2) of the 1948 Act, enabling assessors to sit on the panel in all cases where a tribunal was considering the matters we are discussing today. I was surprised to see in another answer I received from the Minister today that over the past five years no chairman of an agricultural land tribunal has found it necessary to appoint assessors. That is a pity. We ought to insist that assessors be appointed in every case.

Mr. John Morris: Why?

Mr. Jopling: Because at present the chairman is a lawyer, who is not closely involved in agricultural matters—unless he has made a particular study of it—is helped by two members, one from farming and one a landlord. They meet rarely and may be unused to sitting on a tribunal. It would strengthen the tribunals if we included on them a professional man who was used to the law and relating to agricultural holdings, appointed from the panel of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. This would produce better decisions.

Mr. John Morris: In the time I have been involved, directly or indirectly, in tribunals I have never heard of a complaint arising from the fact that a tribunal had failed to appoint such an assessor. Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence of any disquiet within one of the professions or has he heard an individual complainant say that justice has not been done?

Mr. Jopling: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen carefully. I said I had spoken to two ex-presidents of the Association of Agricultural Valuers who are professional


men of great standing. They both said that they felt that the agricultural land tribunals, in the form in which they had been working recently—that is, without assessors—were unsuitable bodies to deal with these highly delicate matters.
I turn to the arguments raised about what is and is not fair. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, and the hon. Member for Durham spoke of the position of the landlord's son. That is something which we must discuss in depth in Committee because I believe that in certain cases we can argue that a landlord's son has at least as much right to work a farm as a tenant's son.
There are other difficulties, particularly transitional difficulties. I recently received a letter from a man who told me that he had bought a farm with a tenant on it. He said:
The new clause stands to create personal hardship for me in that I may not be able to reside at, and farm, the property when the present tenant, who is elderly, retires or dies. Temporarily a non-resident, I bought the farm a few years ago with a view to returning from abroad and making it our family home when the present tenancy expires and the farm now represents the bulk of my savings.
The position of a man in such an unfair situation must be examined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wells made some helpful suggestions about how to deal with the small landlord. But there is also a danger of creating unfairness to others because of the proposals. Some time ago I met a number of managers of large agricultural estates who said that the proposals would take away from such managers the opportunity to farm on their own account.
The National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs Association has told me:
The opinion was therefore expressed by our Agricultural Committee that the major consideration for the average young agriculturist was that the maximum number of tenancies be available within a viable agricultural industry. It was important that these went to the best people by ability and effort, rather than by birthright. We fear that in protecting a few, for very good social reasons, the majority of young agriculturists will be denied the opportunity of contributing to this industry.
That is a powerful message.
I am astonished that these proposals come from the Labour Party. It is

strange to hear that it is setting itself up as champion of commercial élitism and as promoters of economic dynasties. The Labour Party is proposing an extension of privilege. It is a facet of Karl Marx of which I had not been aware. It is significant that only the hon. Member for Durham was able to grasp that. All his hon. Friends ran away from the philosophic dilemma in which the Labour Party must find itself.
How has this situation arisen? We know what has happened. The Minister found himself confronted with some of his Left-wing Back Benchers who have used the policy which the NFU has had for the last seven or eight years to pursue their vendetta against landlords.
In Committee, the Minister told us that he did not want these proposals He made that clear as reported at column 441. We have in other ways seen how the Minister of Agriculture has been bulldozed by his left wing. We have seen it recently, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said, in the Labour Party's proposals to nationalise all agricultural land at a cost of £1,500 million. The Minister has given us the impression that he is against proposals of this kind. He may be against them, but he does not seem to do much about them. He seems unable to resist the steamroller which the left wing has driven into the front door of Whitehall Place.
Whilst in our view there is an argument for helping particularly hard cases in this area, we believe that these proposals go too far. These new clauses are in urgent need of amendment. We shall seek to amend them in Committee. At the moment we reserve our position—

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jopling: No. I must finish. We reserve our position for when we are back in power when these matters may need urgent review. In the meantime we shall—

Mr. Buchan: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, surely one right hon. or hon. Member opposite should tell us whether the Opposition are for or against the principle in the proposal. Are they for the interests of the tenant farmer or


are they trying to defend the position of the landlord? Please tell us.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman becomes more like a parrot the older he gets. I have made it clear—so did my right hon. Friend—that we believe there is an argument for help to be given in this area. I am repeating what I said half a minute ago. It may be that in the way in which these proposals are framed major hardships and situations will occur in the industry which will be wholly bad. We shall have to see whether we can amend these proposals in Committee in order to make them work. But we reserve our position. It may be that we shall have to change them in future, and we shall not hesitate to do so.

7.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales had adequately explained that the Government had decided to introduce these new clauses to give the sons and other near relatives of tenant farmers a qualified right to succeed to farms. I was surprised that, notwithstanding that explanation, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) sought to imply that there was something improper in the Government bringing forward this proposition at this time.

Mr. Pym: I did not say that.

Mr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman said that was precisely how Parliament should not operate.

Mr. Pym: I said that it was a good example of how not to legislate.

Mr. Strang: This is precisely how Parliament should legislate. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on Second Reading, of the 19 Back Benchers who spoke no fewer than 10 referred to this issue although it was not in the Bill? I mention in passing that of those 10 Members, seven were in favour. One was a Welsh Nationalist, one was a Liberal, one was a Conservative, and the other four were Labour Members. Surely it was right and proper that the Government should respond to the representations of Back Benchers on both sides of the House, but particularly on this side.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that, somehow, this proposal had been sprung on the industry and that there had not been adequate prior thought and consultation. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that this was something new. The Labour Party included this proposal in its 1973 programme—"Labour's Programme for Britain". Indeed, over a year ago, in reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I said:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's observation about our experience of the legislation in Scotland. I assure him that the Government are giving serious consideration to making a change in the law in England and Wales. I am sure that he will recognise that this will be a fairly important development in the context of the legislation and we shall therefore have to consult all the other interests."—[Official Report, 20th Feb., 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1539–40.]
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott), I said:
We have now started consultations with the representatives of the agricultural industry and the professional bodies concerned.—[Official Report, 7th May 1975; Vol. 891, c 456.]
Therefore, it is preposterous for hon. Gentlemen to suggest that this proposal has been sprung on the industry without adequate notice of the Labour Party's thinking or of the Government's interest in the matter.

Mr. Pym: If all that consultation was going on, is it not fantastic that proper consultations were not concluded and the provisions included in the original Bill? That is the whole point. The Government obviously did not get their legislation in order. Are we to take it that the Government, after Second Reading of a Bill, are free to come along with an addendum half the length of the original Bill on a new point which did not form part of it? It is true that hon. Members raised this issue on Second Reading, but it was not in the Bill or before the House. That is the point that we are making.

Mr. Strang: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not followed this matter more closely. I made it clear on Second Reading—

Mr. Pym: In winding up.

Mr. Strang: —in winding up on Second Reading—that a major constraint


and consideration in the Government's thinking on the content of the Bill was enormous pressure on the parliamentary timetable. However, we rightly reconsidered this matter in response to representations by hon. Members.
Let me come very quickly—

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Jopling rose—

Mr. Strang: I shall not give way. I must explain this matter. I have given way twice. Another debate is to follow on which there is to be a vote at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Jopling rose—

Mr. Strang: No, I shall not give way. I may give way a little later if the hon. Gentleman will give me an opportunity to get on.
I turn now to the issue that has been raised repeatedly by a number of hon. Members—the question of statutory smallholdings. Basically, there are two reasons why the Government have seen fit not to include in these new clauses an extension of this principle to smallholdings. First, it was envisaged that the clear intention of Parliament under the Agriculture Act 1970 was that smallholdings should be the gateway into farming, for example, for the able and experienced young man who wished to take up a farming career. Does anyone seriously deny that smallholdings can fulfil this rôle to a much greater degree than the average sized tenant farm?
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) disputed the extent to which it was happening in practice. That was a fair point. Smallholdings perform that rôle to a degree. Indeed, that was one of the essential purposes of statutory smallholdings. The Opposition seem to find some difficulty—this is a reflection of their political attitude—in discriminating between the powers which a private landlord should have and those which a democratically elected body should be able to exercise. This is an important principle. Statutory smallholdings are subject to democratic control. The committees which take the decisions on who should succeed are open to public scrutiny.
On the second point, hon. Gentlemen suggest—

Mr. Wiggin: Mr. Wiggin rose—

Mr. Strang: —that the Minister of Agriculture is adopting a different rule for himself. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no exemption from this legislation for the Ministry's tenanted farms. The extension applies purely to statutory smallholdings.
In Committee—some hon. Gentlemen opposite have conveniently forgotten this—I said that last year we issued an instruction to the people who managed the Ministry's farms that sons and near relatives should obtain priority in these matters. In the past two years there have been 67 relettings of the Minister's tenanted farms. In eight of the relettings a near-relative applied for the holding, and in each case the near-relative obtained it.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Mr. Charles Morrison rose—

Mr. Strang: No, I shall not give way. I indicated that I may be able to give way later.
I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) that the Bill also applies to Ministry of Defence farms that are let on normal agricultural tenancies. It will not apply to farms let on a 364-day basis or on other short leases. Certain farms are let on that basis so that the Ministry of Defence can obtain early access should it so wish.
I turn to the issues which have been raised about the agricultural land tribunals. I accept that the work load of the tribunals in England and Wales is likely to increase substantially. As the hon. Member for Westmorland said, the tribunals are now underloaded. I believe that the additional work and experience will be welcomed.
I must tell the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that the tribunals are able, where appropriate, to go into private session. The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that it is right and proper that private sessions are to be entered into only in limited circumstances. I accept that there may be delicate issues to be decided when it is appropriate to go into private session, but I suggest that the best way in which tenants and landlords can see that justice is being done is by matters being handled in public.
I say to the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) that it is not true that the tribunals have never been in the position of choosing between rival claimants. I accept that that situation will occur much more frequently. I am happy to consider any changes which might be made in making appointments to the tribunals. The Government are flexible about a whole host of matters which Opposition Members have raised. I am sure that we shall continue to have the amicable discussions which have taken place in Committee to date.
It is because the tribunals have been asked to arbitrate in relation to rival claimants and in cases where landlords in notice to quit cases have asked tribunals to agree that a prospective new tenant is preferable to the existing tenant—

Mr. Mayhew: Mr. Mayhew rose—

Mr. Strang: No; I have had to tell many hon. Members that I may be able to give way later. I have already given way three times.

Mr. Charles Morrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any restriction on the time allowed for the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The debate can continue until 10 o'clock. It is in the Minister's discretion whether he gives way.

Mr. Strang: I turn to a number of major issues—

Mr. Mayhew: Mr. Mayhew rose—

Mr. Strang: I shall give way on this occasion. It is fair to point out that there is another item of business to follow that cannot continue beyond 10 o'clock. The more time that is taken up with interventions the less time will be available for the following debate.

Mr. Mayhew: Does the Minister agree that there is a world of difference between the agricultural land tribunals having to decide issues such as he has mentioned and deciding between the rival claims of sons of the same tenant farmer?

Mr. Strang: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that that point is adequately dealt with in Com-

mittee. There will be a two-stage process. The tribunals will decide first who is the preferred claimant. Having decided who is the most appropriate successor, the second stage will be to decide whether he should have the statutory right to succeed.
An important matter that was well brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham is that there is not an automatic right to succeed. The right is much more heavily qualified than in Scotland.
It is not unnatural that Opposition Members have complained that, notwithstanding the heavy qualifications, landlords have not been adequately protected. Some of my hon. Friends have expressed concern about some of the limitations. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, in common with my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), went into some detail and listed many areas in which the qualifications or limitations should be reconsidered. They mentioned health grounds, the two-generation argument and the type of education which qualifies as acting in lieu of the five years which have to be spent on the holding. They are all important parts of the scheme. No doubt we shall have many interesting debates upon such matters in Committee. I can assure the House that the Government have a flexible mind.
We believe it right that the law should give the near-relative a statutory right, but we want to achieve the right balance. We shall listen carefully to the views that are put forward in Committee before reaching a final decision about the nature of the statutory guidelines that the tribunals will have to act upon when they come to arbitrate.
I am afraid that time is running out. I assure Conservative Members that there is nothing I should like more than to continue for another half-hour. However, I must respect the rights of those who want to debate other matters, even if Conservative Members do not appreciate the need to do so.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: This is a vitally important debate, and my hon. Friend should not allow his concern about the business which


is to follow to deter him from adequately dealing with these essential matters. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can always arrange for the items of business which are to follow to be debated on a future occasion.

Mr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help. I make it clear that that is positively the last intervention that I intend to allow.
A major issue, which I recognise Conservative Members have raised in good faith, is the suggestion that one effect of the clauses will be to dry up the supply of tenanted farms. I cannot agree that such an outcome will be significant.
We must first consider the possibility against the background of the changing structure of farming. The number of farming businesses, both tenanted and owner-occupied, has been declining rapidly in recent years for good economic reasons. We can expect the decline to continue. In 1970 there were 71·6 thousand wholly tenanted holdings. By 1974 the figure had fallen to 60·8 thousand. In 1970 there were 107·8 thousand wholly owned holdings. By 1974 the number had fallen to 97·7 thousand. Over that period the proportion of wholly-tenanted holdings has fallen gradually from 40 per cent. to 38·4 per cent. So, of course, there has been a continued decline not only in the absolute number of tenanted holdings but in the ratio of tenanted holdings to owner-occupied holdings.
It is right that this improvement in the structure of farming should continue, but an inevitable consequence of this improved efficiency is that there will be reduced opportunities for the would-be farmer to set up his own business. That is true whether he intends to be an owner-occupier or a tenant. The clauses will have the effect of enabling some farms to continue as tenanted when, under existing legislation, they would have been taken in hand by the landlord or sold with vacant possession.
Hon. Members have referred to the agricultural experience in Scotland. I think that they do an injustice to the views expressed there. The scheme there has been in operation for about eight years. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland follows these matters. My

hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West quoted the attitude of the Scottish NFU. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland believes that the evidence from Scotland over these eight years leads to the conclusion that the sort of fears which has been expressed tonight have not been substantiated. I think that is equally true of farm rents.
Hon. Members have to face the fact that, for a host of reasons, the price of farms which are tenanted has been declining, that the number of farms being relet each year has been declining even more sharply—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why?

Mr. Strang: It cannot be accused of usually being biased in our favour, but if the hon. Gentleman will look at the survey conducted by the Country Landowners Association, he will see the reasons.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Taxation.

Mr. Strang: Taxation is no doubt an element in this issue. Why should it not be? There is a host of reasons why landlords have preferred not to relet tenanted farms. Hon. Members have to face the fact that they cannot have their cake and eat it. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said forthrightly that he disagreed with the NFU on this matter. When I heard him say so, I thought "Good. For once we have got a clear-cut statement of the Opposition's policy on this." But that statement was completely different from the line taken by the hon. Member for Westmorland in Committee. I was nevertheless disappointed. What we got was a statement that this proposal was wrong and had to be opposed, followed by a statement that the Opposition would not vote against it, with a vague reference to a system that would enable the sons—and only the sons—of tenant farmers to succeed, and a further system to avoid social hardship.
There is only one way to avoid social hardship, and that is to change the law of the land and to see that, in circumstances where it is fair, the owner's relative has a statutory right to succeed. It is a contradiction for hon. Members opposite to


say how desirable it is for the son of a tenant farmer to follow and how horrible it is that in some circumstances such succession should not take place when it seems fair and reasonable that it should do so, but terribly wrong to introduce legislation to secure the purpose. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said that we all know of cases where it is unthinkable that the son should not follow, but my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor and Durham can quote cases where the unthinkable has happened. The overall purpose of the legislation is to see that the unthinkable does not happen.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though this legislation will end the hardship and unfairness. It will not. It will change it—but there will be cases of hardship and unfairness as a result of the legislation. It is a terrible mistake to think that by simply changing a system which, by and large, has worked well, albeit with cases of hardship, the Government are going to eliminate all hardship and unfairness. The hon. Gentleman should not expect too much from what the Government are proposing.

Mr. Strang: I reiterate that where there is greater hardship to the landlord, and he can demonstrate to that effect, the tribunal will not give the tenant's near relative the succession. If in Standing Committee hon. Members can suggest additional measures whereby we can reduce the social hardship we are talking about, we will happily consider their suggestions, and if they are practical incorporate them in the Bill. The Government bring forward this measure because we believe that it will promote better farming and because of the security which a tenant farmer and his son working on the holding will achieve as a result.
I come from tenant farmer stock myself, but I am not trying to succeed my father on his holding. Hon. Members must recognise that when a farmer gets to the age of 50 or 60 or 70 and his son works with him, the main incentive to keep that land in good heart and to invest is the fact that he wants his son to follow. If that becomes a statutory right rather than only a possibility, it will be a great incentive to the farmer to farm well and to invest in his holding.
But the second and more important reason is that this measure will reduce social hardship—and hon. Members have acknowledged that hardship cases do arise. I am not saying that they are a high proportion of cases, but there is a significant number of them, and under the present system such cases would continue to occur. By introducing these clauses we shall avoid such hardships in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Sir Paul Bryan: Sir Paul Bryan rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sir Paul Bryan.

7.48 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: I wish to intervene briefly now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for two reasons. First, the Minister failed to give way to my hon. Friends Secondly, I shall not be in Standing Committee upstairs to be able to tell him that his speech was a contempt of the House. The hon. Gentleman's speech was contemptuous because he failed to answer the two main questions we put to him. First, will this legislation lead to fewer farms to let, or will it not? Secondly, will it not lead to higher rents?
On the question of there being fewer farms to let, clearly the lesson of the rent Acts in private accommodation has not been learned by the Government. We would all agree that successive rent Acts have led to a situation of fewer and fewer houses to let, where people of modest means cannot find a house to rent. In other words, over-protection of the tenant leads to fewer and fewer tenants. What we have been complaining of tonight is that the over-protection of the tenant as laid down in these new clauses will lead to fewer tenants. Some protection is obviously required, but over-protection beyond the balance that the hon. Gentleman mentioned leads to fewer and fewer farms to let.
Secondly, this legislation is unrelated to the tax situation, and that makes it bad legislation. There are fewer farms to rent because of present capital taxes and fear of worse to come. This can lead to a situation in which the only landlords will be those not affected by capital taxation—in other words, the institutional


landlords. Because they are in business for the rent, they will go for a maximum rent. Those rents set the standard for all rents.
Lastly, we have had no reply to this straight question: is it fair that, with neighbouring farms in the same village, both of, say, 60 acres, one owned by a private landlord and the other owned by the local authority landlord, one tenant and his son should have a right to the inherited tenancy but not the other? Where is the fairness in that? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the trouble to answer that question in Committee.

Mr. Ben Ford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which you can indicate to hon. Members opposite that they should adhere to gentlemen's agreements?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I should not have detained the House but for the deplorable reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have to declare so many interests that it will take up a little time—first, as a landowner; secondly, as a farmer in partnership; thirdly, as a landlord; fourthly, as a lawyer; and, fifthly, as someone who served on agricultural tribunals for many years.
The Government simply have not done their homework on agriculture. They have thought of only one thing in bringing forward the new clauses, or in having them pushed on them by their Back Bench colleagues, and that is the interests of the farming families. What is needed in the interests of agriculture is thought for those who are not in farming but who want to be in farming. The essence of agriculture throughout our history has been the importance of bringing in new blood. There are countless agricultural colleges and institutes training young men in the skills of agriculture, but we are depriving those young men of the opportunity to come into farming in their own right.
The landlord and tenant system is under great strain, and the number of

tenancies coming on offer is being reduced. If legislation in the form suggested is passed, it is certain that the availability of private tenancies will dry up completely. Private landlords will do their best to be just to the sons and families of tenants, but increasingly institutions will own the land and I visualise the day when, if they let their land, they will be advertising for eunuchs or homosexuals or spinsters above the age of child-bearing. It makes a nonsense of agriculture if owners are to be given incentives of this sort.
In view of the importance of the cases which legislation of the kind suggested will throw up, it will not be enough that we should have the traditional type of tribunal consisting of a lawyer, a landowner selected by the CLA and a farmer selected by the NFU. That will be too casual. If lawyers are to be presidents of the tribunals, they must know the countryside and know about what they are adjudicating on. If landowners are to serve on the tribunals, they must have some legal knowledge, and the same applies to farmers. On one tribunal where I was the landlord's representative, I was received by my two colleagues with the news that we need not bother because possession had to be given to the landlord. In about half an hour, I persuaded them that their view was entirely wrong and we decided in favour of the tenant. If we are to have legislation of this kind—and this applies to existing legislation, too—we must have a centralised land tribunal composed of people with expertise in the law and in the land.
I should like to say a few words about the question of county council smallholdings with which I was involved for about 15 years before I became a Member. There is no justification for county council smallholdings unless they provide a farming ladder. The opportunities which they create to bring people into farming are very limited. There is an enormous waiting list of people in Shropshire who wish to get into farming, but the alarming thing is the lack of opportunity for those who wish to get out of county council smallholdings and take on something bigger. Legislation of this kind will make it impossible for them. The only sensible thing to do will be to wind up the whole county council smallholding enterprise and sell it, thus saving a lot of money for


the ratepayers. That would be a deplorable confession of failure, but it is bound to happen if legislation of this sort is passed.
There must be a general inquiry into the future of the landlord-tenant system in agriculture, and it must be combined with a consideration of agricultural taxation because that more than any other factor has created the present unsatisfactory position. I beg the Government, whatever pressures they may be under from their Back Benchers, to decide that the proper thing to do is to withdraw the legislation and to consider the whole matter, bringing into it the question of taxation—capital taxation on land, and income taxation on landlords.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have given across the Chamber an unofficial assurance that I shall speak for only two minutes.
I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the debate in such an insensitive manner. We are discussing a very delicate subject. We all wish to improve the relationship between tenant and landowner. However, the Parliamentary Secretary's contribution was very unhelpful. He ended by talking about the purpose of the new clauses, namely, to remove social hardship. He should perhaps in addition have mentioned the importance of improving agricultural production. The clauses as drafted will not do that. In view of the drop in the value of the pound and the necessity for this country to import less and to grow

more, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would direct more of his comments to that matter. He utterly failed to do so.
The Parliamentary Secretary based virtually the whole of his argument on what the National Farmer's Union has advocated. Perhaps he will indicate to me, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he agrees that there is a large body of opinion among farmers and members of the NFU that there should be provision in the clauses for only one succession, not two, and that many members of the NFU feel that the question of county council smallholdings should be brought within the ambit of the legislation. As the new clauses stand, there is one rule for local authorities and another for the ordinary landowner, and that is not good enough, particularly as many county council smallholdings are bigger than some private holdings which will be affected by the legislation.
We shall try to improve the clauses in Committee. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he will have a battle on his hands in Committee. We want to improve the position of the agricultural industry. We do not want to spoil the relationship between landlord and tenant or to prevent private landowners from doing the wonderful work which they have done in the past to maintain the countryside as a heritage for the people of this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Government's intention to make fresh provision with regard to agricultural tenancies.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE (BROADCASTING)

Ordered,

That the First Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) (House of Commons Paper No. 142) be now considered.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Report considered accordingly.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to waste the time of the House, but we have only two hours left for this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Outrageous."] If hon. Members opposite are to behave like that, we shall behave accordingly. We have two hours to debate an important issue. We wish to get on with the business now, but would the Leader of the House find time, if it is required, to continue the debate at a later stage so that all hon. Members who wish to speak may do so?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) knows quite well that there was an agreement made through the usual channels that the House should spend the first half of the day on agricultural tenancies and the second half on this subject. The fact that the previous debate ran over by an hour is no fault of mine or my hon. Friends. We shall see how we get on.

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the Leader of the House was responding to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I had hoped to put to the Lord President, on a point of order, further words in support of my right hon. Friend. I was Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee whose Report is to be considered and I have not yet had the opportunity of discussing with the Lord President the timing of the debate. I was abroad last week and have only just returned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. That is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Edward Short: On 24th February last year, we passed by a large majority—

Mr. Peyton: I thought the right hon. Gentlman was addressing the House on a point of order. He has just said that there was a gentleman's agreement between the two sides. There was not. There was quite a long statement at the beginning of business which held up the start of the last debate. Some of my hon. Friends were incensed and upset at the reply received from the Parliamentary Secretary. When the Leader of the House gets up in this angry way, he is asking for very much sharper reaction from this side of the House. If we had conducted ourselves like that when we were in Government, we should have had a very much sharper and ill-tempered reaction from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches than the right hon. Gentleman is getting now.

8.10 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That this House supports the proposal that the public sound broadcasting of its proceedings should be arranged on a permanent basis.
First, I must tell the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that I am not in the least angry with him.
On 24th February last year, we passed a Resolution by a large majority in favour of an experiment in the public sound broadcasting of our proceedings. The experiment took place over four weeks last June and July. The Report which we are considering today is a Report by the Services Committee of the House on that experiment.
The view of the Services Committee is that the experiment was a success. While the Report draws attention to a number of problems covering such matters as accommodation, privilege, and copyright, which will need to be resolved before a permanent system of broadcasting is introduced, the Services Committee does not consider that any of these problems need be insoluble.
The question before the House today, therefore, is whether, in the light of this Report, and our practical experience of the experiment, we should now agree in principle that the sound broadcasting of


our proceedings should be arranged on a permanent basis.
The question of whether or not Parliament should be broadcast, on sound or on television, has been discussed so many times in the past 10 years that I do not propose to rehearse the arguments yet again. There is, however, one new consideration. As a result of the experiment, we have at last largely moved away from conjecture and suppositions towards ascertained facts. For example, we can now judge from the experiment, how far, if at all, proceedings and behaviour in the Chamber were affected by the fact that they were being broadcast on radio, and, if they were affected, whether this was for the good of Parliament or otherwise. Equally, we now have a much clearer idea of what the extent of public interest in the sound broadcasting of our proceedings is likely to be.
We have also been able to judge for ourselves over the four-week period whether the selection of extracts from a sound record of our proceedings can maintain due balance and impartiality. And, of course, for the broadcasting Authorities there has been the benefit of first-hand practical experience of the technical problems involved. In all these matters this Report, and the evidence attached, provides a valuable new framework of fact.
It is also interesting to reflect on the wide variety of subjects covered during the experiment. Quite naturally, the Prime Minister's Question Time received wide publicity—indeed this period is regarded by many people as the highlight of our parliamentary week. Also included in live broadcasts were statements by the Prime Minister on the referendum result; by the Foreign Secretary on the situation in Uganda; and the Chancellor outlining the Government's measures to curb inflation. These were important statements not only at home but also abroad, where there was most certainly a lot of interest.
But, on the other hand, more localised matters were covered. Recorded extracts on such subjects as the proposed closure of a local social security office, soccer violence, and anxieties about the sale of crossbows to the young were also used in broadcasts and there were many other issues of particular interest to the local

broadcasting stations. Parliament is concerned with a wide variety of matters affecting the life our our people, and this was reflected in the broadcasts.
Visitors to the House are almost invariably impressed with the unique intimate debating atmosphere in the Chamber—on the one hand, the oratory and the repartee; on the other, the somewhat noisy exchanges across the Floor—and I believe that this special House of Commons atmosphere came across to listeners.
I should like to say a few words about one or two of the factual issues which the Report has brought out, and which are, I think, of importance and relevance to the issue which the House now has to decide. The first is the evidence in the Report, of the extent of public interest in the experiment.
For those who favour the broadcasting of our proceedings it would, I suppose, be one of the principal aims of the broadcasts to widen public interest in what goes on here; to broaden the base of informed public opinion about parliamentary matters; and generally to sustain and stimulate interest in what Parliament stands for. The evidence in the Report of the extent of public interest in the experiment is, therefore, I suggest, one of its major aspects.
Both the BBC and the B3A speak favourably in their evidence of the public's response to the broadcasts. The Director of Radio, IBA, for example, referring to the audience research which the Authority undertook, said that on the basis of what he described as
A modest but serious piece of research",
there had been
A very favourable response indeed",
and that a substantial majority of those asked had wanted the broadcasts continued. The BBC reported that 76 per cent. of their listening panel considered that the broadcasts of excerpts from Parliament on radio should continue.
More particularly, according to the BBC's evidence, the live broadcasts of Question Time attracted about four times the normal radio audience at that time, and that at the end of the experiment this listening figure was still just under 1½ million. The average daily audience for "Yesterday in Parliament", with recorded


sound extracts from proceedings, rose by about 300,000.
The independent companies found that they had made rather more use of parliamentary material in their broadcasts than they had anticipated before the experiment began. And account has also to be taken of the substantial use made of this material in external services and by overseas radio. I must say that I find all this a fairly convincing indication of a widespread public interest.
As a result of the experiment, we all now have a much clearer idea of what the form and content of any permanent system of sound broadcasting should be. Clearly, occasional debates would be broadcast in their entirety. Also there would be some coverage of Committees. For the most part, however, the sound broadcasting of our proceedings would be likely to take the form of extracts from the sound record of proceedings on the Floor, either put together as summaries of a debate or of a parliamentary day, or inserted in national and local news and current affairs programmes. In other words, both broadcasting Authorities would like any permanent pattern to follow, broadly speaking, the pattern adopted during the experiment. It is also of interest to note in passing that during the month's experiment 353 Members of Parliament were heard on BBC alone.
Thirdly, I would draw the attention of the House to the passages in the Report dealing with the question of the financing of any permanent sound broadcasting of our proceedings. Here, there is some difference of view between the broadcasting authorities.
The BBC, for its part, would wish to meet the cost of mounting a permanent operation from Westminster from its licence revenues. The BBC estimates the capital cost involved, excluding any installation in Committee Rooms, at about £310,000, and operating costs at about another £275,000 a year. This assumes that charges for rent and rates, power and fight supplies and building maintenance costs would be met by the House.
The Independent Broadcasting Authority, on the other hand, takes the view that a parliamentary sound unit, a kind of "radio Hansard", should be established to provide a live feed for the broadcasters.

Whilst the independent companies would be willing to meet the ongoing editorial costs involved in their broadcasts of proceedings, they consider that whatever additional capital equipment—apart from equipment in the House—is required which is directly attributable to the broadcasting of Parliament should be provided at parliamentary expense.
These are important differences of view, with significant implications for public expenditure, particularly in the proposal for a House broadcasting unit. There are similar public expenditure implications in any decision as to the size and location of the additional accommodation that would be required for permanent broadcasts. As the Select Committee points out in its Report, the cost will obviously be an important factor in any consideration of the form which permanent broadcasting should take.
There is also outstanding the question whether any permanent sound broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings should cover both Houses. I have previously indicated to the House, if both Houses agree in principle—as I invite the House to do tonight—that permanent sound broadcasting is desirable, that I would see the next step to be the early establishment of a joint Committee to consider the details of a permanent system. The Joint Committee would consider, among other matters, the important issues raised in this Report regarding costs, accommodation and questions of Privilege and copyright. The Government will, of course, do all they can to assist the Joint Committee in these matters.
While the decision to be taken today, however, is not a Government but very much a House matter, nevertheless I commend the Report to the House. The question is whether the House shares the view of the Committee and the Government that the experiment was a success, and whether we should now be justified in agreeing in principle to the permanent sound broadcasting of our proceedings.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an accurate reflection of parliamentary proceeding would equally indicate the necessity for emphasis on Committee proceedings and that, although the Report refers to the recommendations of each individual Chairman, Parliament


would be reflected more accurately by the broadcasting of interesting hearings in Standing Committees and Select Committees?

Mr. Short: There is a great deal in that point of view, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express it if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My own view is that it would greatly enhance the public interest in Parliament and, in an age when democracy is at risk probably as never before, we cannot neglect this opportunity to strengthen it.
I am sure that the House would wish me to express our appreciation to the members of the Broadcasting Sub-Committee and to the broadcasting Authorities for all the work which has gone into the experiment and this Report. The issue before us tonight is whether we agree with its conclusions.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I start by referring to what I said a moment ago and expressing my regret, and, I am sure, that of my hon. Friends, that the Government are apparently content to allow the debate on this important matter to be compressed within less than two hours.
I wish to say a word of thanks to the Select Committee for the way in which it has handled this matter, secondly, to the staff of the House and, thirdly, to the broadcasting authorities. All three made a useful and significant contribution to the success of the experiment and we are indebted to them. It was conducted in an atmosphere of cordiality and cooperation, which is not always to be taken for granted these days.
There can be little doubt about the balance of the verdict. The Select Committee, the majority of Members of Parliament, the broadcasters and the public on balance reacted favourably to the experiment, despite its novelty and the fact that during the currency of an experiment necessarily the equipment is not of such a high standard as it would be if broadcasting were on a more permanent basis. It would be difficult for us to backtrack unless we had very good reasons for doing so.
There are, however, a number of objections which have been voiced and should receive careful consideration, and several

other points which should be noted for subsequent examination after the debate is over.
First, objections were taken to what I can only politely call the "noises off". These sounds, which are familiar and respectable to us who regularly take part in the proceedings of the House, were neither familiar nor respectable to those who were hearing but not seeing our proceedings, many of whom thought that they were more akin to the farmyard than to democratic discussion. Be that as it may, I hope that this objection will be carefully considered by those with technical qualifications to do so with a view to suppressing the more unpleasant interventions, so that the more sensitive people listening to our proceedings will not find them too offensive.
Secondly, there is the question of unfair shares. I realise that if on every occasion we raise the question of fairness we shall make little progress, and no experiment will ever get off the ground. It must be realised that Ministers, in enjoying the last word in this place as they always do, have a very great privilege, and to that is added the fact that Ministers also get the lion's share of the time. This means that we are up against a real problem. With that marvellous optimism which sometimes sweeps him away and quite overwhelms him, the Leader of the House just referred to Prime Minister's Question Time as the highlight of our parliamentary week. I do not think that everyone would go along with that one. The statistics show that the Prime Minister had what is happily referred to as "32 minutes of actuality". Actuality can mean different things on different occasions, but that is just about the last noun I would have chosen to describe the Prime Minister's misty manoeuvrings during his answering session. Anyhow, 32 minutes of actuality, if we are compelled to use that phrase, is far too much. The question of fair shares should be considered in the light of experience.
The third real objection which we must consider seriously is the intrusion upon the very limited space which is available in the Palace. During the experiment—and I understand the reasons for it—the BBC found it necessary to have a large number of people here. I believe that largely they were here for training


purposes. In drawing up the permanent arrangements very careful attention will have to be given to seeing that no commitment is made which would involve the use of space which Parliament cannot afford to surrender. It is most important that these commitments should be settled now rather than later, because if they come later it will only mean either that we have gone too far down the road to retire or, alternatively, that we are hazarding the whole operation.
I stress that I am speaking for myself rather than for my colleagues, but I believe that we would be right to accept the motion. If we did so, a Committee would then surely have to be established—if another place wishes to come into the picture it would have to be a Joint Committee—to consider the administrative arrangements, as has been suggested by the Select Committee. There should also be a parliamentary authority to look after the technical side of the matter. That Joint Committee should at an early date consider the views and objections which have been expressed in the debate tonight, and should have in mind any other points which require settlement before we commit ourselves to the expenditure and to the other steps which are necessary to bring broadcasting permanently into our scene.
There is the question of cost. Before any substantial sums are expended, Parliament should know clearly who will pay for what and the total amount involved. We should not be in too much of a hurry to confer upon the nation yet one more blessing which it may not want if the price is excessive. The question of cost should be inquired into and cleared up before we go any further and before practical steps are taken.
I come, secondly, to the control arrangements. There is the question of copyright, access and use. I take it that the use of the resultant tapes would be confined to news, current affairs and educational programmes, but even those would have to be fairly closely defined in order to avoid misunderstandings, It will be far from easy for an ancient institution of this kind to control and accommodate this highly technical operation. The difficulties must be recognised and met now, and not just left in the hope that they will come out in the

wash, which is our national habit in approaching far too many of our problems.
There is then the question of privilege and contempt. If there is one subject on which Parliament is always in danger of making an ass of itself it is this one. We huff and puff a good deal about the question of privilege and about what is or is not a contempt of Parliament, but we have very little idea of how to meet a situation when someone is in breach of privilege or in contempt of this House. Before we start laying down the law we should get clear what it is and exactly what steps we could and would take to enforce it.
We then come to the Committees. I believe that we should sort out the House first and get that side of the matter working properly before we attempt to go on to include in broadcasts the proceedings of Committees. I have long regarded Standing Committee proceedings as being easily the weakest part of the parliamentary framework. I cannot imagine that Parliament would be wise to take the risk of broadcasting Standing Committee proceedings to the nation, nor can I imagine that the public would be willing for very long to listen to such proceedings. They would be either a matter of profound dullness or, alternatively, one of lasting disillusion at our proceedings. I hope, therefore, that there will be no question of our broadcasting now—or, perhaps, ever—the proceedings of Standing Committees as at present constituted.
Select Committees are of varying importance. A great deal of the evidence is confidential. We should also have regard for experience in America, where there have been some serious problems. It may be good theatre to televise Select Committees of Parliament or of Congress, but it seems to be likely to lead to bad government. So I hope that we will approach the question of televising Committees with great prudence.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend consider the point that some Ministers are very difficult to cross-examine in the House but that they have occasionally and recently been hauled effectively before Select Committees, where interesting facts have been discovered? I hope that he will not turn down the proposition that that kind of parliamentary activity should be given


as much prominence as the highlight of parliamentary life to which the Lord President referred.

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has given a great deal of serious thought to these problems. I am sure that what he says should be weighed carefully. But I am expressing a general preference for taking one step at a time, for starting with broadcasting the proceedings of the House itself before we go on to deal with Select Committees. However, I appreciate that, if a Select Committee could extract interesting answers from Ministers, that might make the whole procedure worth while.
My fourth point is the need for clear rules for advertising. The Independent Broadcasting Authority accepts the need for such rules and it is at least as much in its interests as in the interests of Parliament that clear rules should be established.
Finally, I would want it to be clear that we are now considering only sound broadcasting and that this decision and any action which might flow from it should neither commit us to nor inhibit us from making further decisions about television in future.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Committee which may be set up if we decide to introduce sound broadcasting should keep an eye on the future and on the possibility of television being introduced into the Chamber?

Mr. Peyton: I do not at all agree with the hon. Member. The Committee should have absolutely clear terms of reference. The question of television is a new issue, quite extraneous to the one that we are discussing tonight. I mention it only because I am anxious that the decision that we are now making should neither inhibit us from making another in the future nor commit us to making it.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he endorse, as the Committee implicitly has done in the Report, the use of the sound tape as illustrative material on television newscasts, which is the one slight exception to that separation?

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged. I know that it was. I think that by common consent it greatly enhanced the value of television news broadcasts, and I can see absolutely no objection to its use being continued indefinitely. I am talking about the quite different operation which would be involved in televising proceedings here, not use being made of the sound recordings.
We should be wrong to make further progress with this matter after the decision has been reached tonight till that Committee has been set up, it has had a chance to report in detail to the House and the House has had a chance to consider its report.
Parliament is an institution of immense importance—perhaps never more so than in this fast-moving period of history. It is important that we should not erect barriers between ourselves and the public. It would be unrealistic to expect people to listen with sympathy and understanding to the complaint that we are so fond of making—that we are ignored and bypassed—if then we proceed to cut ourselves off from a medium which I believe has shown, during a brief experiment, that it can help to forward the cause of understanding.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ben Ford: It was both an honour and an interesting experience to have chaired the Broadcasting Sub-Committee responsible for the Report before the House. I have no doubt that the experiment made a great impact not only at home but, most importantly, abroad, for there are many countries throughout the world where our parliamentary system is still highly regarded and, indeed, envied. I hope that hon. Members will read carefully the BBC memorandum printed on page 16 of the Report, in paragraph 38, entitled, "External Services". Interested as I am in foreign affairs, the value of this aspect alone would justify permanent broadcasting. It is an interesting statistic that during the course of 24 hours the BBC broadcasts 250 news bulletins in 40 languages.
I hope that the House will agree to accept the motion, because to close the communications gap between Parliament and people will, more than anything else, reverse the trend towards cynicism that


characterises the attitude of many in our community at present.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) mentioned the question of "noises off". I am sure that this matter can be dealt with by the use of appropriate technical equipment, such as directional microphones, when that will be adequately controlled. In passing, the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the use of space in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I assure him that the greatest demand for space, which is for room for editorial matters, is not necessarily required to be within the precincts of the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, may be able to assist him in this matter later.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure that the Lord President will not mind being reminded that if the Government would make a decision about the Bridge Street site and the use of some of the buildings there, we should be able to move more quickly in this matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) will agree with me on that matter.

Mr. Ford: I would not dissent from that view.
Advanced industrial societies depend upon speed of communication, and although in recent years what we call the media have grown rapidly and enlarged the whole public forum, the rôle of the Member of Parliament in the communication process between the legislative body and those it represents has changed, and in this context diminished. Who, in constituencies, are now prepared to gather at weekend political meetings to listen to speeches about parliamentary affairs when night after night panels of experts are to be seen and heard dissecting current events, and when newsreaders give out news based upon ministerial handouts and briefings unseen and unheard by most Members of Parliament?
Permanent broadcasting from the House will help to restore to the Member of Parliament his rôle as a prime link between the institution and the people he represents, thus raising the dignity of both Member and Parliament.
I do not favour the introduction of television into the Chamber. I must admit that at first I thought that the only fair way of broadcasting would be via a special sound channel carrying the whole of the proceedings, but experience derived from the experiment has convinced me that it is perfectly possible for edited broadcasts to take place on a fair and reasonable basis. Returning to the subject of television, I suggest that the object of broadcasting is to convey information and not to entertain. It is well known that if the eye is actively engaged it tends to reduce the concentration of the mind upon the information being conveyed.
In its Report the Committee has drawn attention to several matters that will require to be considered prior to the actual commencement of broadcasting. Discussion of these need not delay the decision in principle which hon. Members are being requested to make today and which will enable the authorities to commence work on arranging the accommodation and certain technical matters, as well as enabling the broadcasting authorities to make their arrangements with regard to staffing, installation of equipment, and so on.
It now seems inevitable that it will be necessary for this House and another place to form a Joint Committee to consider permanent arrangements for broadcasting, following the expression of a keen desire from the other place to be included. The fact that two Houses are broadcast will make little difference to the editorial accommodation required by the broadcasting authorities, but it renders it all the more essential that a parliamentary broadcasting unit should be set up producing the prime output for the broadcasting authorities and also being responsible for recordings of proceedings to be retained for archival purposes.
I do not visualise much difficulty coming from the other place in these matters, and we would have the advantage of having both the prime signal and a full sound record under parliamentary control. This seems doubly desirable in the operation of copyright, where it will be necessary to have a clean recording available for reference. The question of copyright will no doubt cause more than a little discussion before a


modus operandi is agreed: for instance, in whom should copyright be vested?
Regarding accommodation for commentators, I have been convinced by the evidence that it would be most advantageous both to the broadcasters and to the House itself for the commentary positions to be situated at Member level. I therefore support the proposal that the commentary box should be constructed in the south-west corner of the Chamber.
May I say how much I look forward to the broadcasting of Committee proceedings? We in the House know that parliamentary reputations are made and lost in Committee, but up until the present this has always been an "in-House" affair—something parliamentarians have known but that rarely reaches the public. Broadcasting therefore opens up the opportunity for acquainting the electorate of the hard work and many hours spent in Committees which are the backbone of the country's legislative system.
The broadcasting authorities in particular have been very helpful in supplying memoranda and reports, and my Sub-Committee was most grateful for the assistance of a number of distinguished persons who attended to give evidence. Both the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Radio News were able to impart their own distinctive cachet to their parliamentary broadcasts, but we noted and appreciated the considerable degree of co-operation between these two bodies, whose approach was highly professional.
Finally, I urge colleagues to support the motion before the House to enable us to get on with the work I mentioned earlier. If the House agrees to the motion, it may well be possible to begin broadcasting on a permanent basis after the Summer Recess, thus commencing an era of renewed public confidence in our parliamentary institutions.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. John Moore: I hesitate to inject a discordant note into the debate, but I wish to make two important points. My first point is a totally non-party one. Back Benchers are sometimes in great difficulty. Today, they have one and a half hours to discuss what is probably one of the most important decisions of principle that we could make

this year in relation to the working of the House of Commons and its relationship with the public. This is an appalling situation. I accept that it has nothing to do with the Government Front Bench.
However, I find it peculiar that every time Back Benchers seek to intervene they are constantly told "No time, no time". This is a travesty of what should be the proper working of the House, but I accept that the Leader of the House is not to blame.

Mr. Edward Short: When the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) referred to this matter earlier, I said that we would see how we got on. If at 10 o'clock many hon. Members still wish to speak, I shall certainly be prepared to seek to adjourn the debate and find more time. I realise that the debate is important.

Mr. Moore: I greatly appreciate that. If a discordant note produces that result, clearly it should be injected into our proceedings more frequently.
Secondly, this is a subject on which we are witnessing a constant ego message, as it were, between the two Front Benches. This is a matter that should cause us concern. We should be greatly worried whenever there is such unanimity between those who appear on the two Front Benches.
I have read the Report in considerable detail, and I am in great doubt about the validity of the evidence. I ask hon. Members to scrutinise it in greater detail. I do not seek to refer in any way derogatively to the admirable chairmanship of the Sub-Committee, or to its work. However, we are asked to decide this issue following five short Sub-Committee meetings. No doubt they were five very thorough meetings. Evidence was supplied by the media. Strange as it may seem, the media think that it is wise that we should accept their own advertisement of their ability to perform. I would find it peculiar if the media did anything other than recommend a continuation of their own activity.

Mr. William Molloy: I think that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree that the documents we have before us for discussion form only a small, but essential, proportion of the millions of words that have been written


over the past 15 years on the subject of broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Commons.

Mr. Moore: I hesitate to prolong the debate, but we are dealing with the specifics of the Report. I accept that there has been considerable debate over many years. The Leader of the House clearly indicated, as the Report says, that the Committee
received evidence from those principally involved in the experiment
and had no doubt that their view demonstrated a need for the continuation of the experiment. At present we are discussing that, and that alone.
In the long run I am seriously concerned about the democratic processes. I came to this House believing fundamentally in sound broadcasting and television. After being a Member of the House for one year, I decided that the television experiment was something for which I could not vote. However, I wanted the sound experiment. Now, with great seriousness, I propose to vote against the principle of its continuation. I do so because we are in grave danger of confusing the possibilities of long-term democratic improvement of the stature of this place and its communication with the outside world with what we can only call, in modern terms, the vaudeville process.
I shall concentrate on the three basic effects that this experiment, if made permanently in an edited version—that is the key to the whole matter—will have on the media, Members of Parliament and Parliament as an institution.
First, let me deal with the media. There is great cause for concern that the appearance of power that we allow the media to think they will be gaining from this is merely a delusion which will trap the media into the same dangerous relationship which it currently has with the Executive, whichever party is in power. I shall try to illustrate this in two ways. First, those who have studied the Select Committee's Report will know what I am talking about. In my view this will happen whichever party is in power. Politically, this is an entirely irrelevant matter. The table to which I am referring appears on page 25. It shows that the Ministers received 42·2 per cent. of the time. Clearly

that is something that will continue. There is no way in which Ministers can avoid making statements when pressed by opposition, from whichever side, and no way in which they can avoid dominating Question Time, certainly not with their expert ministerial advisers. We cannot offset that in any way. It is a fact that will come out at permanent broadcasting.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has looked at the record. I joined this House 19 years ago this very night. At that time one could put three Oral Questions at Question Time. The Prime Minister came on at Question No. 45 and that Question was nearly always reached. The deterioration of our processes has brought about the situation to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Moore: I take the point. Already we can return power or parliamentary attention to the Chamber by certain processes relating specifically to what we are seeking to do tonight. I give as an example the White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1978–80. I asked in a Written Question, which I am sure all hon. Members have diligently read in Hansard of 26th February, how many copies of the Public Expenditure White Paper went to the media and when, in comparison with its receipt by Members of Parliament. I was told, on 26th February, that 48 hours before Members of Parliament received copies of the Public Expenditure White Paper not only did one or two go to very important key Lobby journalists, but 265 copies went to the media.
What on earth is happening? What is this all about? I attempted to find out. Again, this is not something done only by the present Government. It was referred to as "a long-standing" parliamentary practice. It is done by all Executives, whichever party is in power. I pursued the matter a little further, but so far I have been able to obtain the names of only 70 out of the 265 newspapers which received advance copies of the Public Expenditure White Paper.
I refer here to the Written Answer given to me on 3rd March, and I find the names of 70 newspapers—these key journals of the world which need to know in advance of Members of Parliament what we are to discuss. I see that copies went to the


Koelische Rundschau, the Stuttgarter Zeitung, the Frankfurter Allgemeine, and to the Bund economic correspondent in Berne, who obviously needed to know two days in advance of our discussions in the Chamber.
That is the key. I accept that our debate on public expenditure has not yet taken place, but on the day when the White Paper appeared in the Vote Office Members of Parliament were expected to appear on radio and television throughout the country and debate these matters in detail with other people who had received the information 48 hours in advance. I hear mutterings from the Back Benches inquiring what this has to do with what we are discussing now. It is related directly to it. It has to do with editorialising and the creation of an intimate duopoly of interest between the Executive in office and the media. That kind of intimate link and relationship allows the media to be used. That is the tragedy of what we are talking about now. It allows the media to be used, and it is now proposed to create a situation in which those same media will allow themselves to be used again.
We ought to know what the parliamentary record suggests. It is rather difficult to find rules governing these things, but we ought to look into precedent when considering the principle put before us tonight. It was hard to find, but I was able to establish from a most interesting discussion in 1942, following the early release of the Beveridge Report, between the present Lord Avon and the late Aneurin Bevan, that in 1927 Mr. Speaker Whitley made a statement which most Members of Parliament, would, I imagine, wish still to be followed as the practice regarding early release of parliamentary papers. He said:
I think it is in the interests of the House that I should say—as has been said from this Chair many times before—that it is most desirable that these papers which are presented by Command to Parliament should be in the hands of the House at least at the same time as they appear in the Press. I am saying that without any knowledge of the methods by which these papers have been obtained. There have been mistakes in times gone by … and the House of Commons has always been jealous of its own rights. I think it is right that I should reaffirm them."—[Official Report, 9th March 1927; Vol. 203, c. 1240.]
I am saying, in the first place, that the media themselves become part and

parcel of the Executive's methods, whichever Government may be in office. In the second place, I ask hon. Members to study in detail the particular period of the experiment. I do not suggest that many Members of Parliament were not happy to hear themselves. But how, and in what manner?—and what will be the nature and character of the comments which Members of Parliament feel it necessary to make in order to appear on the proposed edited channel? It will change the nature of the beasts who perform already and the nature of the circus rules in relation to the very limited opportunity for parliamentary performance. In the longer term, indeed, I fear that it might in a sense change the nature of the selection process. I can well imagine that constituency associations might consider it necessary to concern themselves with the public name and ability of candidates or the number of times their Members of Parliament appeared on the radio channel. In my view, this has deep implications for the longer term and ought to give us cause for anxiety.
The experiment was handled, I acknowledge, modestly, intelligently and rationally, but it was an experiment. What happens when we are no longer in the experimental phase? What will follow a vote in principle tonight? What happens when, instead of recognising that there are times when Parliament can be entertaining, Parliament joins, as it must, that part the media concerned with the entertainment process, that being perfectly valid from the point of view of the media, it being part and parcel of their communication? With respect, that is not what Parliament should be about. Ultimately, this will not lead to a return of public attention and to greater stature for the Chamber. It will lead to power and control going further into the editor's cutting room, and that is not what we should seek to do when we try to raise the stature of Parliament.
I could support a measure which allowed complete radio broadcasting of the whole process, without any editing of any kind. That I could endorse, but not the motion before us tonight which, if we accept it in principle, will lead to an edited version which will, I am sure, ultimately negate our whole structure, just as the media-Executive relationship is tending to do today.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: It is some eleven years since, on a Friday afternoon, I spoke in favour of televising the proceedings in this Chamber. On that occasion we were concerned with more esoteric questions, such as the level at which we ought to look when we spoke, how we sat and how our demeanour showed itself to the camera.
I recall that in another debate when we discussed this matter of televising the proceedings, the proposal was lost first because the then Leader of the House was so persuasive and clear that he felt that as a good Oxford don he must argue the other side as well as in favour of televising, and he managed to defeat himself. Also on that occasion a Member from a Glasgow constituency had intended to travel by aeroplane to his constituency, but the fog came down and he came back, and travelled by British Rail. One of the things for which I have never forgiven British Rail is that he was able to catch the night sleeper, and as a result we lost by one vote.
I feel we have diminished in our courage since then. Last year, in a typically shilly-shally, half-hearted attitude—I would not say that we were cowardly, but we were nervous of the electorate—we decided to vote for radio broadcasting of the proceedings as against televising them. Perhaps we were a little nervous of our appearance—although this would not apply to myself!
We are trying to summon up courage to broadcast the proceedings by radio permanently. I have not the slightest doubt that, this time, we must at last put the radio side of the matter at rest, in the sense of confirming the continuous sound broadcasting of proceedings in this House. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Russell Kerr), who has Australian descent, is aware of the fascinating nature of Australian broadcasting which bores people to tears, but I do not think we shall be in danger of that situation.
I should like to give some impression of the experiment which was conducted on Manchester Radio. I thought that some senior citizens might have been put

off by the extemporaneous remarks of some of the more distinguished Members of this House. In fact, they were extremely interested. One lady said that she had cancelled her copy of The Times because she found that the BBC broadcasts were infinitely more interesting, more lively and cheaper. Some of my constituents have said "Why are you not like the hon. Member for Keighley who is always so interesting? Why are you not on the radio?"
I should like to emphasise the historical value of starting these broadcasts as soon as possible. Radio and televison broadcasting is part of the living history of our country. If we do not want to be seen or heard we ought to go into nunneries or monasteries. The schools and the universities are ready to receive the information which can be recorded by the parliamentary recording unit. When the Leader of the Opposition makes a brilliant bon mot about Russia we need to hear that on the radio. When the Prime Minister speaks, as he does briefly from time to time, we must have him recorded so that our sons, grandsons and granddaughters can hear him.
I know those who work in American educational television well. They would like copies of such material. We have a problem about the editing and control. There was an example last year when unauthorised use was made of a recording in a television programme. This material is a valuable part of social history. We are able to hear the Trades Union Congress Conference and every other kind of Press conference outside the House. We need to put into the can the proceedings of this House. We should not be afraid of doing this. I hope that we shall go ahead and have our proceedings broadcast and ultimately televised. Let us make a start this autumn with permanent broadcasting of our proceedings.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The Select Committee is to be commended not only on the breadth of its Report, which touched so succinctly upon the technical details, but on the reassuring way in which it dealt with all of the questions raised by the broadcasting of our proceedings. It was reassuring in terms of the statistical basis—albeit a narrow one but still fundamental in research terms—for


the number of people who were attracted to listen to our debates.
The Report of the Committee was reassuring in dealing with the success of the broadcasts locally and regionally. It was good to know that people felt, after hearing the broadcasts, that they knew more of what was going on in the Chamber and felt better informed about parliamentary matters and methods. Most reassuring of all, people wanted to hear more.
It was interesting to note the way in which sound broadcasts could be used within television broadcasting as well as on radio programmes at home and abroad. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I believe that there was a good balance between Government and Opposition speakers. Equally, there was a good balance between Front and Back Benches. I was reassured by the tone and content of Back Bench speeches which I felt was a step in the direction of bringing Back Bench influence to bear on the Executive.
According to the Report, there seems to be little or no difficulty about copyright or Privilege and few, if any, difficulties about defining the use to which broadcast tapes could be used after they had been made.
It was reassuring to find that the BBC, looking at the cost on a permanent basis, was able to reduce the estimate that it gave before the experiment started. We must apply ourselves to considering the costs of permanent broadcasting of our proceedings. No one can sniff at cost figures of between £250,000 and £400,000 per annum in addition to the capital cost of installing the equipment. If we can thereby ensure a better understanding of Parliament, that will be money well spent for the sake not only of this House but of all the people who elected us.
I should like to make four comments on the question of cost. Certain costs might appear to be easily reducible when we consider the method of permanent broadcasting.
It is extremely important to enable editing to take place near Parliament so that the editing is as informed and sensitive as possible. Those two points are made in the Report. I should prefer the

establishment of a parliamentary unit akin to Hansard rather than give up the responsibility and place the power of recording what goes on here in the hands of the BBC or ITV.
There is a need to readjust the microphones in this Chamber so that some of the background noise can be eliminated to an even greater degree than was achieved in the experiment. The elimination of background noise was improved during the experiment.
The last point in this context is the even more pressing need to improve the acoustics in the Committee rooms so that those legislative workshops can be included in future sound broadcasting. I am delighted with the reassurance in the Report that the architecture and atmosphere of the Committee rooms will not have to be drastically changed to achieve that improvement.
The question remains, why broadcast at all? It is important to remind ourselves of the principles underlying the need to apply this far from new medium to the recording of our discourses. We have an increasingly informed electorate. Therefore, we must allow the listeners who tune in to radio—I hope also one day those who tune in to television—to judge for themselves the merits of the arguments put forward by Front Bench speakers on both sides of the House. In addition, we must give those listeners—and viewers eventually—the right to judge Back Benchers' contributions to our debates. That is surely a more meaningful way for people to understand our somewhat complicated process of law-making and political debating than to rely on the staged discussion within a studio which often gives a complete misrepresentation of politics.
I believe that by covering important debates we shall erode the present tendency to rule by studio and studio interviewer. We shall attract attention back to this Chamber by covering announcements made here rather than, as they often are now, within studios or Press conferences outside this Chamber. In the end we must remember that Parliament needs to communicate better from Westminster to the constituencies and the country generally. That contention was put succinctly in the Kilbrandon Report. It reported that people have tended to become disillusioned with government and that the general disenchantment may be


largely attributable to a failure in communication.
This is not a new problem. The presence of the Press in the House was once feared and fought against for many of the reasons that are now being put forward, many of the same arguments being employed. I believe that parliamentary government is feeling strains of a nature which have not been felt for centuries. If by introducing radio we can build bridges between ourselves and the outside world, and instil in people's minds a mite greater appreciation that Parliament is their institution where their battles are fought, we can reduce the strain to a considerable degree. I believe that that is the most important reason for supporting the motion.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) was right in what he said. I understand rather than clash with his remarks. I shall take up later the discordant reserve expressed by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore). The hon. Gentleman said that we are discussing a matter that has the possible making of a media conspiracy. He suggested that there is something implicit in the arrangements now before us which will entrench the power and protection of the media in the same way as the connivance, over the years, of Front Benches of both persuasions in issuing Press releases to newspapers a long time before Back Benchers have been able to see them.
I share the hon. Gentleman's indignation about the issuing, long before hon. Members see them, of Press digests and releases, and important documents of State, to newspapers, under the embargo that is usually but not always observed. However, that is quite a separate issue. We are discussing whether we can shift back power and influence into the Chamber and into Committees that are under our control, taking a degree of power from the selecting processes of the media.
In my time I have been a television producer. I have had to pick my cast, including Conservative Members. I can say to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central that I would have picked him

to put the point of view of his party. He has personality and he is handsome, self-assured and fluent. There is no reason for his not being part of the comparatively select band that puts the point of view of the parties in the television studios. As we have said time after time, that is where power and influence have gone—away from the House to the television studios and to the selecting media.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who receive advance copies of handouts may well have a pre-set idea of the course of a debate? Might that not influence the selection and the presentation of a broadcast?

Mr. Whitehead: I hope that hon. Members will not put up with that kind of treatment. I hope that they will not lie back supinely and accept that sort of treatment, as they allowed Press releases to be issued to outside bodies before the information was known within the Chamber. If hon. Members are to be heard by their constituents over the air in our exchanges, including the cardboard warfare of Question Time, it is crucial that we should be informed as quickly and as fully as the newspapers that report upon our proceedings. Only the other day an hon. Member, who is a friend of mine, was invited into the studio to defend the Government and to comment on a White Paper with only one hour's notice. The ink was not dry on the copy of the White Paper that he had received, whereas those holding the ring, setting the questions and doing the research had had the document for two days. That is what is wrong. If we are debating these matters when statements are made at Question Time and we have to respond to them, we shall no longer tolerate having our ignorance shown up because of the way the system has operated over the years.

Mr. John Moore: I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is developing—indeed, I made it myself—but does it not emphasise the crucial distinction between edited and totally open reporting of the House, which is the key distinction?

Mr. Whitehead: Yes, of course. That matter was raised about the presence of the Press listening to and recording our debates in 1771. But that reservation will


always be made as long as the media are looking at and have the opportunity to select and take for themselves extracts of our proceedings.
Paragraph 4 of the Report refers to a suggestion that I have always advanced—that there should be a broadcasting unit. That would maintain control over the initial recording in this place and in Committees, and would control the copyright and prevent misuse of our proceedings. That is what is needed. That is what would maintain, in the process of selection outside, the true editing of our debates—through Mr. Speaker in the Chair—both in its balance and in its selection, so that the accents of Barnsley and Bradford and Bolsover and other places so frequently heard in this House but not so frequently heard in the more articulate and balanced debates of the media, come through as thoroughly in the edited reports as they do here in this Chamber, through the editing, if one can call it so, by Mr. Speaker.

Sir Paul Bryan: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it should be in the hands of a parliamentary body?

Mr. Whitehead: I have never said that. I have said that in my judgment a parliamentary broadcast unit should be responsible for the recording of our proceedings on a master tape—as it is called here—and for the copyright in that master tape, which should be available to those outside the House but should be the property of the House in the use that it decides to make of it.
How was this experiment received outside? My right hon. Friend referred to the favourable response which the media themselves got in their sampling of opinion. I suggest that the samples showed that many of the audience, particularly in the IBA sample, actually wished to hear a live broadcast of our proceedings rather than just extracts.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My hon. Friend will no doubt be interested to know that my brother-in-law, who is a real Liverpool lad, said that this was the best thing since sliced bread.

Mr. Whitehead: I agree. We all have to take our sampling where we can. I would accept with approval my hon. Friend's brother-in-law against those who have been quoted elsewhere—in

The Times, for instance—as saying that we sounded like the Wheeltappers and Shunters' Social Club, or the gentlemen from the Isle of Wight who wrote to The Times saying that he had visited places where
ordinary, humble, decent citizens gather
to find that the programme was greeted with an anger almost frightening in its intensity. That has not been the reception in my constituency. Many of us have found among our constituents qualified approval and a greater willingness to listen to this experiment and a desire that the experiment should go on, as expresesd in the opinion polls.
The reservations have already been expressed in the debate. There is, first, the reservation that what has come through in the experiment a little too much is Question Time and its inexplicable noises. That will happen as long as we have sound broadcasting only and not television. Question Time is the most difficult part of our proceedings to broadcast in a comprehensible manner. It is a matter that some future House will have to decide, in the context of whether it wishes its proceedings to be televised.
I would not be too depressed by the present situation. After all, Andrew Alexander, in the Daily Mail recently—he is not a writer with whom I normally agree, but I am glad to be able to pray him in aid now—wrote that we should not mock the noisy scenes because this
… is not the Reichstag or the Supreme Soviet.
That is right.
This is not a client assembly, or a rubber stamp. Incomprehensible though they may be sometimes to the outsider, these noises, which have for hundreds of years been heard by observers of our proceedings and in the last two centuries have been recorded by our friends in the Press Gallery—whom we are not allowed to mention—will be heard on the radio. They contribute to the fabric of our parliamentary democracy.
The only other point that I wish to make on the reservations is more serious. It brings me directly to the reason why we need a broadcasing unit and we need to watch carefully the question of copyright in our proceedings. I refer to the incident with the programme called "The


Nearly Man"—that account of the life and loves of a Labour Member of Parliament broadcast as a fictional drama by Granada Television.
When we were hearing evidence in the Select Committee, I asked the representatives of the BBC and the IBA whether they would put selected extracts on programmes that were not of the recognised informative type. They said that they would not. I said:
You are saying you would restrict it"—
that is, the use of the extracts—
to news, current affairs and educational programmes?".
The answer was "Yes". However, an extract from our proceedings was used in "The Nearly Man", with the accompanying remark from one of the fictional politicians, "We are not exactly 'Hancock's Half-Hour', are we?" No more we are, and no more we must be. Whatever we may sound like in the extracts of our proceedings in the proper context, it is wrong that material of that kind should be used out of context in fictional dramas.
A full apology was made to the Select Committee by the IBA and the programme company concerned, although Mr. David Plowright, of the programme company concerned, said that he had the feeling that it was
a serious and well-intentioned programme".
It may have been, but serious and well-intentioned programmes are not necessarily the programmes of information, education and current affairs that were envisaged when we set up the experiment and had the four weeks of recordings.
Therefore, I hope that the Joint Committee—I do not believe that it must be a joint committee concerned with the affairs of the House of Lords, which may or may not exist in years to come—when it considers the way in which the output of the Palace of Westminster, Parliament and its Committees should be treated, will, most of all, consider how we should recruit a broadcasting unit with recognised broadcasters to work for it providing the "feed" for this Chamber.
There are three or four reasons why that is necessary. The first, which I have already mentioned, concerns the question of protecting our copyright. The second

is to co-ordinate the degree to which the proceedings of the Chamber as against those of Select Committees and Standing Committees are recorded and used. I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that the proceedings of the Standing Committees are, in all circumstances, incomprehensible and will be treated with ridicule and contempt by the public. In future there may be more broadcasting authorities than there are now. If so, we should not regard ourselves as being bound to the existing duopoly, with their representatives in the little box doing their Burke and Hare act as they had to do in the restricted commentary position which was used for the experiment. We can distinguish between recording the proceedings and preparing the packages from which the various outlets will broadcast their extracts.
The recording of the proceedings should be under the authority of the House, through a broadcasting unit, and across the road, in Norman Shaw South, or in the Bridge Street building, we can put, as is done for the party conferences, the recording devices, editing crews and all the other people putting out the packages.
What we do tonight will, in a small but significant way, extend our democracy. The people in the IBA survey who had been in the Stranger's Gallery to hear debates and had also listened to the recordings, were in favour, by a majority of more than 90 per cent., of the experiment's becoming a permanent part of Parliament. I am sure they were right.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: It is perhaps not surprising that when the House last considered the broadcasting of its proceedings, the experiment with radio coverage went through with an overwhelming majority while television coverage was rejected. I declare an interest in this matter, since I was employed, on and off-screen and microphone, as a broadcaster before coming to the House.
In February 1975, an erstwhile colleague of mine suggested that the vote on television coverage would be the first time that those hon. Members who were fortunate enough to be handsome would be


in the "Aye" Lobby and the rest would be in the "No" Lobby. I regard that as a joke in rather poor taste. It is significant of the frivolity with which some members of the media are prepared to treat our proceedings. That is the reason why I support a broadcasting unit providing a clean feed to the broadcasting organisations with the copyright of the taping vested in this House.
We are considering only radio coverage tonight, but we are paddling in the shallow end of the pool and, like any toddler, we shall ultimately be tempted into the deep water under the full gaze of electronic cameras and lights. Whatever decision we reach may ultimately lead to the lords of the media from Broadcasting House or the IBA Big Five being given access to the proceedings of this House. As a passionate believer in opening our proceedings to a wider public, I think the House should be cautious about taking that step. It is the thin end of the wedge and hon Members should recognise it as such. Since much more hangs on tonight's vote than mere radio coverage, it is prudent to establish a broadcasting unit analogous to Hansard, responsible to a Committee of this House.
It is important to get matters right first time before future broadcasters are tempted to snip here and cut there to show the socks of one hon. Member, the ankles of another or what one does with his keys during debates. It is only a matter of time before certain broadcasters attempt to insert radio tapes in television programmes dealing with the rise and fall of Margaret Thatcher, the end of Harold Wilson, or the rebirth of Scotland. We have to be careful.
The broadcasting unit of the House should be able to recruit its own professional broadcasters to supervise the technical taping and editing and construction of debates. They will not be responsible for what goes out on individual channels.
The late Richard Crossman was an adventurous Leader of the House. He wrote in a Fabian pamphlet in 1972 about a "stage-by-stage operation" suggesting that radio coverage of the Chamber should come first, followed by an extension to another place and then into Committees. He considered that in this way broadcasters and the country would learn together how coverage should be

employed step by step. There would be an initial feed to the IBA and BBC followed by an extension to news agencies, clubs and universities and eventually, a tape library—social history on tape.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): There has been a great deal of talk about the broadcasting unit. Some people seem to see it as a purely technical matter and other as some form of editorial control. The hon. Member used the phrase "supervising editing". What did he mean by that?

Mr. Reid: I meant that there should be a continuous feed of the proceedings in the Chamber to the broadcasting organisations but that it would be impossible in the early stages to provide coverage of every Committee in the House. I suggest that in those early stages, the unit should be responsible for deciding on Select Committee A against Select Committee B or Standing Committee X against Standing Committee Z.
Many hon. Members may wince at the ideal of any extraneous body being allowed to cut and trim proceedings, but it happens now in the Press Gallery, and with broadcasting we shall have a double editing process. You, Mr. Speaker, sit in the editorial chair and determine who is called to speak. While hon. Members may grumph and girn, one of the great virtues of this House is the absolute geographical, sociological and political balance achieved in speeches.
It would be healthy for the broadcasting organisations to have available to them a tape from the parliamentary broadcasting unit prepared by servants of the House and not by so-called lords of the media. At present too many hon. Members have permanent season tickets to programmes such as "The World at One", "PM Reports" or, north of the border, "Good Morning Scotland".

Sir P. Bryan: I am not clear what the unit would do with the tape if it did not edit it. Would it choose which voices were to be recorded?

Mr. Reid: It would provide a proper coverage of the House and proper directional microphones. If the coverage got


into the hands of the broadcasters they would be inclined to use sotto voce phrases here and there and also to pick and choose between Select Committees. I suggest that there should be a two-tier operation which provides a clean feed of proceedings on the Floor of the House as stage one and selection between Select Committee A and Select Committee B as stage two. It would provide a non-edited service from the Floor of the House and an edited service from Committees.
The reason I support the broadcasting of our proceedings is that so much decision-making has been removed in the public mind from the Floor of the House into a gladiatorial conflict in the television or radio studio. The three-minute broadcasting confrontation to a large extent has replaced the reasoned debate on the Floor of the House. As Nye Bevan said in 1959, it is a humiliating state of affairs in which Members are picked out to take part in broadcasting on the ipse dixit of Broadcasting House. To a large extent that is still true.
It is not true for the Bundestag in West Germany. Members of the Bundestag whose voices are heard on radio and whose faces appear on television are not the instant pundits, the buffoons or the flowery orators. They are, by and large, the ordinary Members of that House who know what they are talking about and who therefore strike a chord in their audience. I should like that to happen here. I want to see that reality reflected in British broadcasting rather than the present charade of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition locked in mortal conflict, or the curious view that Members of Parliament are somehow miracle workers able to release the Shrewsbury Two or effect some change in Department of Health and Social Security regulations at a stroke.
In general "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" provide a superlative coverage of the issues before the House. As far as north of the border is concerned it seems that at times people involved in the editorial process in London are conditioned to believe that nothing happens north of the Watford Gap, and there are still too many references to the "three parties" when there

are more parties now represented in the House. Far too often the effect of secondary legislation on Scotland and the speeches of Scottish Members are ignored. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the parliamentary broadcasting unit to provide a clean feed direct to the Scottish broadcasting organisation.
In 1771 the House was still putting printers and publishers in the Tower, but in that year some Members of Parliament objected and laid down a motion which read:
That the practice of letting the constituents know the parliamentary behaviour of their truest representatives was founded on the truest principles of the constitution.
That still is true, and that is why in the interests of democracy I support the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I expected the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) to call for an independent broadcasting service for Scotland. He was unfair to the BBC and IBA in talking about quotations from speeches made by SNP Members. He is the only SNP Member in the House, so he is the only one likely to be quoted tonight on this issue. Hon. Members cannot be quoted if they are not here. The Liberals will not be quoted at all.
I am reminded of a paragraph in the Report of the debate which took place on 24th February. That was a very different debate from this debate. That was before the experiment. Now we have had the experiment and there seems to be a change of attitude towards broadcasting. The paragraph reads as follows:
It is an astonishment to me that we should have talked about this matter for as long, I believe, as 15 years since the late Aneurin Bevan first mentioned it in a speech. It is an astonishment to me that it is 10 years since the Select Committee reported in favour, and it is an astonishment to me that we should have needed to discuss the matter some seven times, I believe, in the past decade or so. In my view, this place is the weaker if it is not fully reported to our fellow citizens, and reported in ways which they can plainly see, understand and feel involved in."—[Official Report, 24th February 1975; Vol. 887, c. 54.]
I believe that I have been objective because that quotation was by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)


who was Chairman of the 1922 Committee. I hope that since both the Front Benches have agreed that this Report should be accepted and that since it is a Report of the Services Committee representing hon. Members in all parts of the House, which was unanimous in bringing these recommendations before the House tonight—

Mr. John Mendelson: My hon. Friend said that he had been objective. In referring to the objectivity of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) my hon. Friend said that the right hon. Gentleman happened to be Chairman of the 1922 Committee. Is that evidence of objectivity?

Mr. Evans: In one sense that would represent an absence of objectivity, but I was being impartial and was trying to be objective in dealing with the arguments by quoting what the right hon. Gentleman had said.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Even though the hon. Gentleman and I are Members of the Services Committee, I must point out his error in saying that the Services Committee had recommended that sound broadcasts should continue. The Report specifically did not say that. It said that by and large the experiment had been successful and that it was up to the House to come to a decision. The Select Committee made no recommendation on this matter.

Mr. Evans: The Report is before the House. The Services Committee took evidence and in the light of the experiment it stated that the experiment was successful. It is of course for the House to decide on the motion in the light of the all-party recommendation of the Services Committee.
I would support the televising of Parliament. We shall not be taking a major step this evening by agreeing to sound broadcasting, but it is at least a step in the right direction. Reports of the proceedings of the House in the national Press are inadequate, and the reports made in the "Today in Parliament" broadcasts do not give as good a picture of the proceedings as was given by the BBC in the experiment. Of course, during the experiment the BBC doubled the amount of time it devoted to these programmes.
The House of Commons should be a forum of Britain's respresentatives, and it should have its proceedings reported in a way which acknowledges that it is the political forum of this country. It could have a unifying effect between the people of Wales, Scotland and England if our proceedings could be recorded and eventually televised. The July experiment was successful. People who had reservations before the experiment and who were opposed to the idea of broadcasting the proceedings have come since to accept it.
As the Report says, the experiment was a national event which attracted wide interest throughout Britain. I do not believe that the unique character of this House suffered in any way from the broadcasts. I am certain that the attempt to give people more contact with the House was welcomed. Many constituents of mine said that they thought that that type of broadcast was more compelling than third person reports by journalists. The Select Committee said that it was justified in finding that the experiment was successful and that broadcasting could be arranged satisfactorily "on a permanent basis". That is the answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke).
I hope that we can have a vote before Ten o'clock—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well. We have been talking about this matter for 15 years so no doubt we can spare another day on it.
In future, we should have not only edited versions of the proceedings but also perhaps broadcasts of special parliamentary occasions, such as the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Budget and the opening and closing speeches in major debates. I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that at this stage we should not consider broadcasting Standing Committees, since many hon. Members themselves are bored with those proceedings. Perhaps they could be broadcast late at night in place of "A Book at Bedtime".
Among the problems mentioned is that of "noises off". However, if the microphone near the speaker were left on and the others switched off, the problem might be overcome.

Mr. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this so-called problem arises


solely because hon. Members are not allowed to clap and that therefore the only way in which they can show support or disapproval is by making noises? If that is thoroughly explained to the people they will understand.

Mr. Evans: I take the point, except that applause like that which greeted my hon. Friend's intervention might prolong speeches.
One gained the impression from some of the broadcasts that one was listening to Covent Garden—the market place, not the opera house. If we televised our proceedings, that might be better, since then the noise-makers could be identified. There are problems with sound only when someone interjects in a serious speech and that inaudible interruption is followed by a roar of laughter.
The question of fair shares is a legitimate question.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Would my hon. Friend accept that some hon. Members do a great deal of work on Committees and in some circumstances are excluded from the Chamber? If the Committee proceedings were not even considered for broadcasting, that would be unfair and would lead to the representation only of those on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) always makes good interjections. I was about to deal with that matter. When we refer to the broadcasting of Parliament we must bear in mind what that means. At present there are not fair shares for parliamentarians. As my hon. Friend will agree, there are full-time Members of this House and part-time Members. Unfortunately in the broadcasting media it is not the full-time Members whom we hear on programmes such as "Panorama", "Tonight", "First Report", "World at One", and all the others.
If the proceedings of this House were broadcast, the broadcasts would be more representative. Instead of having a second-hand debate between two so-called parliamentary experts, who might rarely be seen in the precincts of the House, or having a ding-dong battle on a subject on "Tonight" or "Panorama", we would be having a debate on the Floor

of the House. That would enhance democracy.
It is possible that we shall have to adjourn the debate this evening. However, I hope that we shall not adjourn the decision to allow the people of Britain to listen to the broadcast proceedings of this House as well as to read them in the newspapers.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I believe that the House of Commons should be heard but not seen. Members of Parliament are like actors and parsons—members of the performing arts. We are as good as our last speech. Some of us are even better.
The House of Commons has two functions. The first is to inform. It has to increase public awareness of political issues. Secondly, it has to entertain, because the House of Commons is a theatre, and at times, thanks to hon. Members opposite, a theatre of the absurd.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that the main reason for Members being in this House—at least it should be—is to argue sincerely for their political point of view? That is why we are here it is that which we must put across to the public. It is nothing to do with entertainment. We are here to fight for our political point of view. The hon. Gentleman should not be here for entertainment.

Mr. Critchley: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is clearly losing his sense of humour as the hour progresses.
Having whetted the public's appetite by the experiment that we conducted last summer, we should give them what they apparently want. We should welcome the wireless but be very wary of the box, because radio is more flexible and more discreet. Radio cannot show empty Benches, or somnolent Members of Parliament. Nor does the microphone attract the exhibitionist in the way that the camera does.
Those who opposed last year's experiment did so, quite honestly, for two reasons. First, they feared that it would not increase the respect in which this place is held by the public, and secondly, that


it would radically alter the nature of debates. I believe that last year's experiment did neither. It increased the public's interest and it has made no difference apparently to our proceedings.
It is true that some sensitive souls claimed to be severely shocked by the "noises off"—by the cries of "Rubbish" and "Rhubarb". However, the public must have us, warts and all. After all, Parliament is a substitute for violence, a natural safety-valve. If at times we behave in an eighteenth century manner by abusing our neighbours, that is part and parcel of the parliamentary process, and we should not be so refined as to wish to eradicate these natural and normal noises. Parliament, as I have said, is a theatre. We are its players. We come in search of prizes, some glittering, some not. Most of us end up as "nearly men". If at times we sound like the Eurovision Song Contest, at others we can play Lear.
Finally, I appeal to my hon. Friends who have doubts. We in the Conservative Party should not be stuffy. Communication is far too important to be left to journalists. Parliament has been failing in recent years to win the interest of the public. We should attempt to reverse the process. It is not enough for members of my party to shake their grey heads. The Conservative Party, above all, should never forget that politics is essentially a vulgar activity.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: A very large number of hon. Members are generally in favour of some form of sound broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, mostly because many think that the public should have more information about what happens in the Chamber. For that reason, I would not oppose an ultimate system of sound broadcasting. I regret that I would not be in a position to vote for the motion on the Order Paper at present, even were there to be a Division on it.
There are a number of matters that have not yet been raised on the Floor of the House. I hope that we shall have another opportunity to discuss them at a later stage. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) rightly put the case for a House of Commons broadcasting unit, and that received support from both sides

of the House. I regard that as a necessary condition for going ahead, but the form of the motion does not make that a necessary condition.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend will surely agree that to propose such a thing would go far beyond the remit of the Select Committee on Services. That Committee can only expand on the possibilities. It cannot make such a concrete suggestion. That is for the House, tonight.

Mr. Spearing: I agree. However, there is no such concrete suggestion in the Report. I am not suggesting that the Services Committee was not doing its job. This is why I am saying that we need another bite at the cherry before taking a substantive decision.
The other matter, which is of considerable substance, is the question of advance copies of documents and the various meetings that we understand take place with certain members of the Government in certain places prior to the proceedings on the Floor of the House. That involves papers being produced, as my hon. Friend agrees. I think that the review of the question of advance copies and the whole matter of Lobby correspondents and how they view the House should be examined as a whole. I agree with my hon. Friend that the matter must be examined, but I would want some new rules introduced before going ahead with the broadcasting of the House.
The third matter about which I am somewhat uneasy has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore). The table at Appendix B on page 25 of the Select Committee's Report shows that Ministers got 42·21 per cent., Labour Back Benchers 17·48 per cent. and Conservatives 28·77 per cent. of time on "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament". The table does not split the percentage for Conservatives between Back Benchers and Front Benchers.
One of the difficulties that editors always have is balancing the major personalities—Ministers and members of the Shadow Cabinet—with Back Benchers. Successful though the one-month experiment was in many ways because it enabled people to hear and understand what was going on in the House of Commons, it necessarily raised all the


problems and dilemmas of the editing process. We should look at the matter again and decide to have the experiment for a year.
However, the motion before us proposes permanent broadcasting of the proceedings of the House. For various reasons I believe mat at present it goes too far. For instance, there is the whole question of snippets. Quite often snippets of a debate have been broadcast. If one looks over the period of a year one will see to what extent a continuous debate is reported and to what extent it is approached on a snippet basis. In that way one may be able to see a change in the trend and be able to judge better.
There is also the question of late night debates. Often, late night debates are important for particular interests or areas of the country. I do not think that in the Services Committee's Report there is an analysis of the coverage of these minority programme times. I thought it was indicative and interesting that in his evidence the Editor of Hansard pointed out that the broadcasting authorities were avid for Hansard in order to read it first, look at the column number and do their editing on the basis of the spoken word.

Mr. Ford: My hon. Friend is now referring to page 25. If he will look at page 24 he will see a list of live broadcasts, some of which took place very late. For instance, one took place between 2300 and 0130 hours.

Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but the point I was making did not necessarily apply only to live broadcasts. My hon. Friend's point has illustrated another matter that we have not properly distinguished in this debate. We are not talking about only live broadcasts; there are also recorded broadcasts, which are quite different.
I shall make my speech brief in the hope that this matter may be adjourned. I turn to the question of a Sessional Order. As I have suggested, I do not think that one month necessarily allows enough time for a valid experiment. I hope that if we go ahead we can do so under a Sessional Order for one year. That would be a much more sensible arrangement, and it would remove some of the problems from the system. It might also convince some hon. Gentlemen who might otherwise still have doubts about the matter.
The context of our speeches is a matter that is fundamental but has not yet been mentioned. So often when speaking in the Chamber we do not need to describe the context of our speech, because it is known by other hon. Members. There have been incidents in Standing Committee when we automatically know of a matter because we have read it in the papers or found out about it at meetings outside, and therefore it is common knowledge. However, it is difficult for certain people listening to appreciate this point, and our speeches are therefore not always as forceful or as clear as they might be. This is an inevitable part of the parliamentary process. It means that if broadcasting becomes permanent our speeches will, perforce, have to change their character and our exchanges will, perforce, have to change their character. I am not saying that that would necessarily be a bad thing. It might be very good. However, the point is that we shall not know.
If we pass a resolution such as the one on the Order Paper tonight, for the permanent broadcasting of the House, whether it be a recording or live, our exchanges may deteriorate, but we shall not be able to draw back. I hope that if we go ahead it will be on the basis of an experiment for one year.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's Sitting, the Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords] and the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Orders of the Day — TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 6

AGE LIMIT FOR TRUSTEES

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 18, at end add—
'(4) A person who has attained the age of 70 shall, despite subsections (1) and (2) above be eligible for appointment as a Trustee if a special resolution is placed before the appointing meeting detailing his age and which has received the prior approval of the Central Board'.
I accept at once that the wording of an amendment moved by anyone who does not have the assistance of Treasury draftsmen is usually inaccurate and probably does not convey the meaning intended, but I think that the Financial Secretary understands what lies behind this amendment.
What worries me is that, under the Bill as it stands, we have to say "full-stop" to anyone at age 70, with the result that someone who has rendered distinguished service to the Trustee Savings Bank movement will find that he can no longer continue to serve as a trustee. Why should that be so? In the rest of the business world, in the joint stock banks and in limited companies, it is possible in the case of an exceptionally good director to obtain special exemption through a general meeting of shareholders to the effect that, in spite of the age of the director concerned, he may continue to serve if required.
I do not see why the Trustee Savings Banks should be put in a less favourable

position. I acknowledge that without the safeguard which I have tried to draft in the amendment—the prior approval of the Central Board—there would be a danger that "old Joe" sitting at a meeting of his own bank could so put the "fluence" on his colleagues that they would not find it possible to say "He is a bit past it, and he ought not to carry on." The judgment of the Central Board would be brought to bear here, because the Board would have representation from the bank in question, and in these circumstances it would be possible to ensure that "old Joe" was not necessarily elected just because it was felt unfair that he should not be allowed to continue.
We all know that there are people who are too old at 50 and there are others too young at 70, yet the Bill would draw an arbitrary line according to the birth certificate of the person concerned. Anyone who knows the Trustee Savings Bank movement will know the name of Sir Kenneth Stewart, one of the great men of the movement, yet if this Bill had been an Act of Parliament at that time the Trustee Savings Bank movement would have lost a decade of Sir Kenneth's expert services and advice.
That is the reasoning behind the amendment. In Committee, the Minister made some sympathetic noises. I hope that those sympathetic noises will go a little further tonight, and that he will tell us that, although the amendment is badly worded, he nevertheless sees merit in it and will be prepared to consider inserting some such provision in another place. I leave it at that, in the hope that the Minister will express such sympathy.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I wish to encourage my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary not to accept this amendment. Our discussions in Standing Committee made it quite clear that there was anxiety even about the clauses which allow people to stay on the boards of trustees until the age of 75. The Financial Secretary gave some interesting figures and said that over 10 per cent. of the people who are trustees are over 75 years of age and that another 15 per cent. are between 70 and 75, which means that a quarter of the trustees are over 70.
There may be exceptional cases, but those figures prove to me what I have believed to be the case, that trustees tend to be self-perpetuating bodies of people who are fairly narrowly based in their backgrounds, and that was born out by the remarks of the Financial Secretary. As I say, there may be exceptions to that rule, but my view on the amendment is that enough is enough. The Government have allowed people to stay on till 75 if they are already trustees, and I think that is a big enough concession. We should retire them at 70 and say that that is as long as they should be allowed to serve.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The whole House, I am sure, will understand the problem that one has in fixing age limits—a problem which is not peculiar to the Trustee Savings Banks.
Any comments that I make on the amendment are related to the substance of it and not to the actual drafting, as the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr Finsberg) urged me to do. I accept what he says, quite rightly, that there are special skills in drafting provisions in legislation which meet all the contingencies, which only parliamentary draftsmen are able to consider in full, but what we are concerned with here is the proposition about the age limit.
In Standing Committee I gave an undertaking that I would look at the situation—the fairly narrow situation—where in a community there existed a trustee with particular skills understood by those in that community, and as an exceptional measure I was asked to consider whether some provision could be made for such a person. Clearly, there may well be in fact, knowing the history of the Trustee Savings Banks, there is likely to be—from time to time a wholly exceptional situation of a kind which is not dissimilar from that which exists in public life and, indeed, in industrial and public companies. But what we have to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) pointed out, is to consider the rare case for which some justification can be advanced—the hon. Member for Hampstead certainly advanced it—by comparison with the much larger number of cases.
My hon. Friend quoted the figure that I gave of 25 per cent. of such trustees over the age of 70 at the present time. The difficulty is that these trustees will be selected by very limited numbers of people, and it is not really possible to devise effective methods of meeting the exceptional case with which the whole House would have a great deal of sympathy. It is because of the need to consider the expanding work that trustees will have in the future and the much greater demands upon them, and consider also the comparison between the work that the trustees will be required to undertake and that which applies in other walks of life, that we felt that the age limits were necessary.
I feel—and this is probably the most important point—that we have allowed for a very considerable degree of continuity between the present practice and that which we expect to come into effect in the autumn and from then on. That degree of continuity meets most of the serious points. Although I have sympathy with the point about exceptional service which has been given voluntarily by so many people, I feel that we must put foremost the interests of the banks. I must reluctantly ask the hon. Member for Hampstead whether he will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: It is always difficult to refuse requests made by the Financial Secretary in such beguiling tones. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

PROVISIONS AS TO THE TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS CENTRAL BOARD

Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 21, line 14, at end insert—
'(e) three representatives of employees elected through trade union machinery'.
I rise briefly to disturb the tranquil passage of the Bill. So tranquil has it been that I did not notice its movement through the House. I believe that it had only one morning in Committee. I have been asked to move the amendment by


the National Union of Bank Employees, which represents 98 per cent. of employees in the Trustee Savings Banks. The remaining 2 per cent. of employees pay to a charity, as agreed between the employers and the union.
It is a modest amendment asking for three employees to be elected to the central body through the national trade union machinery. I am not asking for a fifty-fifty split, which is what the trade union movement might ask for. This union is moderate and well respected for its reputation in industrial relations. All it wants is a modest step forward. It would also like the provision to extend to the Regional Boards. There is a general argument for having employee representatives on boards, and I introduced a Bill on that subject in the last Session. I am not making that point now. All I am saying is that the time has come to inject into this rather sedate establishment—which is so sedate that one-quarter of its members are over 70—the views of those who actually work in the movement. The workers represent a wider view than the view held by those people who are now on the Board. They represent the views of the small investor.
A contraction from 72 to 17 banks provides an ideal opportunity of looking at the situation. Even if my hon. Friend cannot accept the amendment, I urge him to consider carefully the ideas behind it, because they come from the union which represents 98 per cent. of the employees in these banks. I ask him to consider their ideas in the light of the Bullock Committee's recommendations—when they are received.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) said in proposing this amendment. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee, but the hon. Gentleman will know that in my mind this Bill immediately brought together the whole question of the piecemeal legislation which we are attempting to put through the House both in this Bill and the Post Office (Banking Services) Bill which is now before another place.
There appear to be three immediate objections to the amendment. The first is that, despite the hon. Gentleman's blandishments, this is discriminatory

legislation. The hon. Gentleman claims to be putting forward an argument in favour of the 98 per cent. of employees who are members of the National Union of Bank Employees. To that extent, I understand the basis of his argument, but it does not weaken the argument against the discriminatory proposal which he has made. If we are to consider those who should be represented at the level which he has in mind, we cannot single out employees of banks who are trade unionists. We must also consider employees who are not trade unionists. The hon. Gentleman has no right to suggest that there is some inalienable right in trade unions to be represented in the way that he suggested.
Secondly, the amendment appears to be totally arbitrary. What is the basis on which three employees is the number chosen? Why should it not be one, two or some greater number? We have had no justification for the quantification put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Radice: The purpose of the amendment is to get the principle of employee representation on the Central Trustee Savings Banks Board accepted.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman suggests that he wishes to have the principle established. But it is still up to him to put forward a clear-cut idea for this number in relation to the composition of the Board overall. It is not sufficient to suggest that we should accept this specific amendment to establish the principle.
My final objection is to the piecemeal legislation envisaged by the amendment. In recent weeks we have had to look at what the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has rightly described as piecemeal legislation coming before this House at a time when we know that the Government plan to bring forward supervisory legislation relating both to the Trustee Savings Banks and the Post Office Giro Bank as it will be. Against this background of future legislation and the feeling that we are in this bizarre way raising an important point of principle, I do not think that it would be right for us to accept the amendment.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) is nit-picking in speaking against the amendment in


terms of the proportion of trade union members who shall be on the Board.
I support the amendment. The National Union of Bank Employees has such strong support in the Trustee Savings Banks that, if staff are to be represented on the Central Board, it is clearly the body from which the representatives should come.
I see from the evidence which the National Union of Bank Employees put before the Page Committee in 1971 that the procedural agreement between the union and the TSB Employers Council was signed and agreed in 1947. It goes back a very long time. The NUBE has a substantial body of support which has been recognised by the TSB management. I can think of few industries or organisations which have procedural agreements going back that far and which have so much support from the employers. Therefore, a strong case can be made for this proposal. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept this specific amendment, I hope that he will at least be prepared to discuss with the Central Board the composition of both the regional trustees and the Central Board itself.
There is the option under Schedule I to have four people co-opted to the Central Board. It may be that if the amendment cannot be accepted the Board will carefully consider the possibility of putting on one or two of the four co-options from the trade union movement, and possibly from the National Union of Bank Employees. I hope that the Board and the Minister will give careful consideration to that proposal.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the House will reject the amendment. I should like the Minister to reject it rather more forcibly than I think he will.
I have watched the progress of worker participation, industrial democracy and all the rest of it with some interest. Over the past 12 months I have had the pleasure of serving on two Standing Committees which have written industrial democracy into the operations of constitutional bodies.
First, we set up the Scottish Development Agency. It is a wonderful new State body which is splashing around a great deal of money on administration but not

on jobs or anything to help Scotland. A clause was inserted to the effect that companies to which the Agency gives money have an obligation to follow a path of industrial democracy. I asked repeatedly "What on earth is industrial democracy?" The Minister replied that the Government were still considering the matter and having 
I am also having the pleasure of taking part in the debates on the Bill that seeks to nationalise the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. There is a clause which provides that a new nationalised corporation will have to apply industrial democracy. I and a number of Labour Members have been cross-examining the Minister at some length in Committee about what is meant by industrial democracy. We still do not have the slightest idea.
I believe that worker participation, whether in this Bill or any other, will be something like devolution—namely, something which everyone is in favour of as long as it is painted with a broad brush and not examined in detail. It is a concept that will horrify many people when specific schemes are discussed.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) had the guts to bring forward a Bill setting out proposals for industrial democracy. Happily the Bill died a death because of an assurance from the Government that they would set up yet another committee.
I oppose the amendment on a number of specific grounds. First, it is monstrous that a Bill that seeks to provide the TSB with more freedom to operate in what is called a highly sophisticated banking system should have an obligation placed upon it that does not apply to other banks. The TSB will be competing with other banks for investors' money, yet it is to be saddled with something called worker participation. It is a formula which will cast a great deal of suspicion in the minds of the conservative-minded investing public.
In trying to introduce proper competition on a fair and equal basis, it is wrong to put an obligation on a group of banks which is not faced by other joint stock banks. I hope that the Government will be careful, in advance of their splendid Committee, about going ahead with


industrial democracy plans until they have thought the matter through.
A number of trade union leaders have been thinking about industrial democracy and worker participation. Three of the principal trade unions have come out with strong reservations. I think they realise that if employee participation works at factory level it will be the beginning of the end for the organised trade union movement in its present form. More and more trade union leaders and branch officials are coming to that conclusion. If industrial democracy is successfully applied, the place for the trade union below district level will disappear.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this proposal was specifically made by a trade union which wants the representation which the amendments seeks to provide?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, I accept that the National Union of Bank Employees may want it, but other trade unions which are looking at this matter very carefully—the hon. Gentleman should refer to some recent statements by trade union leaders—are becoming rather lukewarm about a proposal about which they were enthusiastic at one time.
I have to this proposal the same objection which I have towards the terms of reference of the Bullock Committee. There is a world of difference between what one might call "employee participation" and trade union participation. Although there may be 98 per cent. union membership in the Trustee Savings Banks, there is a principle here that I would not want to give away. I have the feeling that some left-wing members of the Labour Party—I do not count the hon. Members for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and Chester-le-Street—who are pushing industrial democracy are really interested in trade union control of industry and commerce and not so much in employee participation. There is certainly scope in industry and commerce for more participation and better communication, but industrial democracy is a different concept. If we were to start by specifying a scheme, we should be making a mistake.
I know that hon. Members do not like to be reminded of the Common Market

because of the damage it is doing to our people, but the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, who was an enthusiast for the Common Market, should be aware that these dreadful Common Market people are bringing forward a new regulation which will have supremacy over our own law. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, take great interest in democracy in Britain and that you will be as horrified as I am that a Common Market law can take precedence over our own law. Even if all hon. Members of this House voted for something, it would have no relevance if the Common Market approved a regulation which was different.
The Common Market is deeply engaged in discussion, with the help of the splendid Commission, aimed at drawing up specific proposals on employee participation, industrial democracy, and what-have-you. It would therefore be silly if we brought forward plans to apply to British institutions if the Common Market is to come along with something different and make us overhaul and overturn what we have done. That would be quite wrong in this situation. It would be wrong to approve any detailed plans for British industrial democracy, particularly in the Trustee Savings Banks movement, at present, especially when that movement does such a good job in its present form.
I have been here for 11 years—as someone reminded me, longer than a life sentence. I have seen a lot of grandiose ideas experimented with. I have seen people who wanted to overturn the world setting up committees and holding inquiries. It usually works out for the worse. Let us not rush into anything without thinking of the consequences. I hope that the Minister will do what he should do. He should not just say that he is sympathetic to the idea, that it is a good idea, but that there are technicalities. I hope that he will simply throw it out.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I oppose the amendment. I wondered how my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would bring in the Common Market, and it was fascinating to hear how he did it. I hope that the Trustee Savings Banks under the Bill will be allowed to make the same sort of progress that they make in Europe and elsewhere.
I must take the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) to task. I would not like him to be thought correct in calling the Trustee Savings Bank movement sedate. I do not think that any organisation with an annual turnover of £9,000 million can be called "sedate". I do not know whether he himself is a small depositor in one of the Trustee Savings Banks, but I am, and I am very satisfied with the standard of management provided by the movement.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart in saying that it would be a pity if the amendment were passed in isolation while the Bullock Committee is still delving. It would be unfair to single out the Trustee Savings Bank movement as a guinea pig. It would be wrong because at a time of total transformation, when the Trustee Savings Banks are going from a sheltered, cloistered life under the benevolent protection of the Treasury into the wide open world, which I am sure they are capable of doing, they should not be given this extra burden. It might upset the small depositors about whom the hon. Gentleman professed to be concerned.
Therefore, whether he does it in beguiling terms or in tough terms, I hope that the Financial Secretary will advise the House to reject the amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: A number of appeals have been made, but in an ingenious speech the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) managed to deal not only with the Trustee Savings Banks but with the Common Market and capital punishment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) urged me to give the right reaction to his proposal and asked me to consider the ideas behind the amendment. I go further and say that not only am I prepared to consider them but I accept many of them, as did the Government when they asked the Bullock Committee, while
Accepting the need for a radical extension of industrial democracy … and accepting the essential role of trade union organisations in this process, to consider how such an extension can best be achieved, taking into account in particular the proposals of the Trades Union Congress report on industrial democracy as well as experience in Britain, the EEC and other countries.

That is precisely what we are doing. We have asked Lord Bullock and his distinguished Committee to make a full examination into all these matters. Therefore, I must accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), although I would not go so far as to call the Trustee Savings Banks sheltered, cloistered institutions.
The Bullock Committee has all the terms of reference that my hon. Friends the Members for Chester-le-Street and Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) wish it to have. It is expected to report this year, so implementation of its report could well be in the time scale of the first three years of the new structure of the Trustee Savings Banks.
My hon. Friend might have reminded the House that there was a very good reason for choosing the figure three, because it was the figure given by the National Union of Bank Employees in its representations on the Trustee Savings Bank legislation in April 1974. Since then, however, it has been overtaken by the establishment of the Bullock Committee and the much wider consideration that will now be given to the matter, of which I have great hopes. I trust that my hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this area, will be able to produce many arguments in our debates which will lead to its widespread acceptance in principle and possibly in detail.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby. As he rightly said, there is nothing in this legislation to stop employee representation going ahead as soon as the legislation is passed. The Trustee Savings Banks may see merit in going ahead even before the Bullock Committee reports, but that must be a matter for them to decide rather than that it should be imposed. Any other consideration will be more suitable following the production of the Bullock Report and the consequences likely to flow from it.
Perhaps with those assurances my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street will not press the amendment.

Mr. Radice: In the light of what my hon. Friend has said and the sympathetic way in which he put it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. David Knox: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 21, line 26, leave out "£100 million" and insert "£40 million".
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), whose name is attached to the amendment, has asked me to express his regret that he could not be here tonight. He has a pressing constituency engagement.
The aim of the amendment is to lower from £100 million to £40 million the level of cash liabilities to depositors which a Trustee Savings Bank must have to qualify for a seat on the Central Board. The amendment would increase the number of members of the Board from 17 to 18.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and I are concerned mainly with the North Staffordshire Trustee Savings Bank which has been referred to on a number of occasions in our debates on the Bill. Since the Second Reading and Committee stage, the trustees of the North Staffordshire bank have met representatives of the Trustee Savings Banks Association and the discussions were friendly and constructive.
The trustees were assured that the Central Board would not use its powers to force the North Staffordshire bank to do anything it considered inadvisable or to amalgamate with another bank unless the trustees so wished. The trustees were also assured that their bank would not be forced to use data processing services or equipment it did not wish to use.
The trustees felt that the attitude of the Association was very helpful compared with their previous threatening attitude to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has referred. As a result, the trustees of the North Staffordshire bank are happy to participate in the new set-up—which is a very different attitude from that which they were showing at an earlier stage.
I wish to express the trustees' thanks to the Financial Secretary. We do not know exactly what happened, but we gathered that he has been of great assistance. However, there is still one problem. Under the Bill, the North Staffordshire Trustees Savings Bank would not have a seat on the Central Board because its cash liabilities to depositors do not exceed £100 million. At present they are £44

million. The amendment would give the bank a seat on the Board where it would be able play its full part in the future development of the Trustee Savings Bank movement and in decisions which might affect it.
The amendment is not unreasonable. If it would upset the balance on the Board, I could understand any objections, but 17 regional banks with balances ranging from £622 million for the South-East Regional Bank to £104 million for the Midlands Regional Bank will serve on the Board. If the amendment is not accepted, the North Staffordshire bank will be the only regional bank not represented on the Board.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and I accept that the North Staffordshire bank is smaller than any of the other banks, but that serves only to confirm our view that it should have a seat on the Board. It would be one amongst 17 bigger banks, but it would not be in a position to upset the plans of the bigger banks. As a member of the Board it would be able to remind other members of the interest of smaller banks and, in particular, of its own interests.
I hope that the Financial Secretary, who has already been helpful in this matter, will accept the amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sorry not to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), but it would not be wise for the House to accept the amendment. The Trustee Savings Banks are entering a new and highly competitive field, and the minimum size of a regional bank was set at £100 million liabilities to ensure its viability. In the past, the range of Trustee Savings Banks has been from £300 million to £500,000. The Central Board was created to provide for banks of an average size of £220 million. The only bank which does not fall within that range for technical and legal reasons is the Channel Isles bank, but even that is only just below £100 million. If North Staffordshire were allowed a seat on the Board, its depositors would continue to receive a service which is less comprehensive than that of any other Trustee Savings Bank.
In Committee I gave figures showing the amount of interest paid to depositors as a percentage of balances. North Staffordshire paid 5·51 per cent., the Aber-


deen Trustee Savings Bank paid 668 per cent. and the average of all Trustee Savings Banks was 6 per cent. However good the North Staffordshire Trustee Savings Bank is, its depositors are getting a lower return than are depositors with other banks. They would be in that continuing situation if the Financial Secretary gave way and reduced the figure from £100 million to £40 million.
There has been an enormous amount of discussion in the movement. I am authorised by the Trustee Savings Banks movement to say that no pressure has been exerted on any bank. If the amendment were accepted, many other banks with liabilities below £100 million might wish to become separate banks and try to unscramble the federations that have been built up over the past few months.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will advise the House not to accept the amendment, or that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw it. I understand his feelings of local loyalty. Nothing I have said means that the work done by the North Staffordshire Trustee Savings Bank should be run down in any way. It would be of great advantage to the depositors with North Staffordshire if the bank were to offer the full range of services. That may well come if the trustees of North Staffordshire accept that the eligibility for a seat on the Central Board should be £100 million. The trustees may find bedfellows, and there may be an amalgamation or federation which would satisfy everyone, producing the £100 million criterion and giving the added benefits to the people who matter, not the trustees but the depositors.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) kindly referred to my role in the meeting of the Trustee Savings Banks Association and the North Staffordshire Trustee Savings Bank. I was delighted, as was the hon. Gentleman, at the co-operation which resulted from that meeting, co-operation which will obviously be fruitful in the future. But now we are faced with the further point—whether the North Staffordshire Trustee Savings Bank or any other should get a seat on the Central Board if its deposits are below £100 million but exceed £40 million. This is a very

different matter. As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) pointed out, there will be a number of regional groupings which will wonder why they accepted those groupings when an alternative would have been available to them.
Another reason for amalgamation was to construct larger units which could offer the new facilities which include overdrafts, personal loans and other forms of technical service for which substantial deposits will be required. That was in accordance with a recommendation of the Page Committee which the Government accepted as being in the interests of the Trustee Savings Bank movement generally. The Government accepted that the Board had to be fairly compact. The hon. Member for Leek might say that one more member would not make much difference, but that he forgets the many other Trustee Savings Banks which might use the possibilities opened up by the amendment.
The sum of £100 million was not just plucked out of the air. It resulted from a long round of consultations and negotiations with Trustee Savings Banks all over the country. The negotiations could be reopened at this stage only with great difficulty and to no advantage.
I appreciate the generous reference by the hon. Member for Leek to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), who is unable to be here this evening. I must, however, come down on the side of the hon. Member for Hampstead who says that the depositors must come first. The rights of the trustees and the part they play in the movement must be recognised, but in this reorganisation the interests of the depositors must come first. On reflection, I am sure that it will be agreed that those interests would best be served by considering not only local loyalties but the position of depositors who will enjoy a better service and whose money will be more fruitfully used if the changes proposed in the Bill are made and if there is no derogation of the kind the hon. Gentleman is proposing.

Mr. John Forrester: I would first thank the Financial Secretary for his help in achieving cooperation between the Central Board and the North Staffordshire Trustee Savings


Bank. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) has covered most of the points, but I was concerned about the magic figure of £100 million. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) gave me the impression that it might have been imposed on the Financial Secretary by Brussels.
Of course the interests of the depositors must come first in all the deliberations, but the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) appeared to be saying that we could not reduce the amount to £40 million because then North Staffordshire might become and remain independent and others might be tempted to follow suit, whereas if it were not reduced North Staffordshire might later be forced into an amalgamation because it was not big enough. I know that all negotiations have been voluntary, but is my hon. Friend hoping that in future North Staffordshire will not be big or viable enough to withstand the pressures of the Central Board?

Mr. Sheldon: Perhaps I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest. Hon. Members accepted my assurance in Committee that there had been no arm-twisting, no undue pressure on the North Staffordshire Trustee Savings Bank. We were considering the interests of the depositors, but if the bank wished to stay as it was, that would be allowed. There might be serious consequences from this proposal for the depositors, which I am sure my hon. Friend will also consider.

Mr. Knox: In view of the Financial Secretary's help, it would be churlish to press the amendment. Therefore, reluctantly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4

SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 1 TO THE TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS ACT1969

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 28, line 30, after 'by' insert 'the signatures of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 4. Vol. 907

Mr. Sheldon: The amendments put beyond doubt the meaning of paragraph 1(2), that the documents should be authenticated by the signature of one of the custodian trustees and of an officer of the bank authorised by the custodian trustees to act on their behalf.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 28, line 31, leave out 'by' and insert' of.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The House, by this Bill, will be giving the Trustee Savings Banks movement a welcome push into open waters which will greatly benefit their depositors. I have been connected with the movement for more than 20 years as a depositor and a trustee. I am no longer a trustee—although I have not reached the magic age of 70—but I am still a depositor.
The movement has done an immense amount of good work. It has started many people on the road to saving. It has translated their hopes from small savings accounts to cheque accounts and begun to offer them the same services as the joint stock banks. The attitude of the staffs is perhaps more cosy because there is more time available.
The Treasury's blessing, which has been given to this freedom of the Trustee Savings Banks movement, has been long overdue but is extremely welcome.
I pay tribute again to Sir Harry Page for the work that his Committee did. I hope that the Bill will receive a Third Reading and will soon be on the statute book. A large amount of detailed planning has to be carried out in order that the amalgamations and the Central Board can be set up as early as possible.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I, too, wish the Trustee Savings Banks well. I hope that they grow substantially, as they plan, and that they will provide the public with a choice of comprehensive banking services.
As the House knows, I expressed my anxieties about the general question of supervision of the banking industry in this country during the Second Reading debate on the Bill, in Committee and during a debate on another Bill. I am sure that all those anxieties will be quietened by the Government's White Paper on this subject, which is to be published shortly. We shall then know how the Trustee Savings Banks will be supervised and how all the other banks will fit in neatly and dovetail together in a comprehensive system of supervision. I look forward greatly to the White Paper and the proposals contained in it.
I thank the Financial Secretary for the courteous and helpful way in which he has handled the Bill through all its stages. I have found it most interesting to serve on the Committee and to take part in the debate. I have been greatly helped by the replies and assistance that the Minister has given.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Ian Stewart: I shall intervene only briefly. I add my good wishes to the Bill.
I want to put the record straight on one or two small matters which occurred on Second Reading. I have been asked by Mr. Catt. the General Manager of the Central Trustee Savings Bank, to point out that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Fins-berg) referred to
Mr. Catt, the then General Manager of the Trustee Savings Bank …
and to
the new General Manager of the Central Bank …"—[Official Report, 17th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 1221–28.]
respectively. Mr. Catt has been the General Manager of the Central Trustee Saving Bank since its operations began in May 1973. Therefore, both hon. Members referred to the same person. Mr. Catt is still in his post. I am sure that we all wish him well in the task that lies ahead of him.
The subject on which Mr. Catt was quoted on Second Reading concerned the commercial objectives of the Trustee Savings Banks. Reference was made to

an interview which he gave to the Trustee Savings Bank Gazette which was published on 4th October 1974. He has told me that his remarks in that article were specifically designed to describe the future work of the Central Trustee Savings Bank and not the individual Trustee Savings Banks, for which the Central Trustee Savings Bank acts as a clearing house and the provider of other services. It is possible that some of the remarks in the Second Reading debate might be misinterpreted as applying to individual Trustee Savings Banks. Mr. Catt has asked me to say that that was not intended.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Gentleman may remember that I raised this question of the role of the Central Trustee Savings Bank in Standing Committee. The Minister has now confirmed what I said in Committee, that it is a Section 123 bank. Therefore, it could have a substantial banking role to play.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: It is accepted that there could be a wider role, but because of the way in which Mr. Catt's remarks were expressed and the intepretation which was placed upon them by hon. Members it might be that some confusion remains. As no doubt the debate on Second Reading will be one of the points of reference for future discussion about the way in which the movement develops, it seemed right to take this opportunity to correct that possible misapprehension.
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is in a sense a spokesman not only for the Opposition but also for the Trustee Savings Banks movement, as he so proudly and justifiably claimed, may I point out that there was one point besides North Staffordshire which was a matter of dispute in this otherwise very harmoniously debated Bill? That was the question of the relationship between the Central Board, and, therefore, the Central Trustee Savings Bank, and the constituent banks.
I will not recapitulate the issue in detail, but the Bill is not happily drafted to avoid some of the problems we encountered. For example, the very important Clause 1, which describes the powers of the Trustee Savings Bank Central


Board, is expressed in words which vary from "may give" and "may provide" to
shall give directions to the trustee savings banks ".
We spent time trying to clarify to what extent these were instructions and what freedom of action the individual banks would have if they did not wish to follow the requirements of the Central Board. It seemed that the only sanctions were that the services of the Central Trustee Savings Bank might be withdrawn from such banks. Indeed, the whole of the North Staffordshire part of the debate, so to speak, was in a sense an attempt to secure further clarification of what would be the position of a Trustee Savings Bank which might wish to deviate from the policies laid down from above. The Standing Committee received some assurances from the Financial Secretary to the effect that it was not the intention that there should be any compulsion, but as drafted the Bill leaves that possibility open.
I will not labour that point further, but it would not be proper for the Third Reading to pass without recording that the Committee was seriously worried about the way in which the relationship between the Central Board and the individual savings banks might operate in practice.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Bill has been well received on both sides of the House, although there was a considerable amount of probing. If the Bill is given a Third Reading, the banks will be empowered to expand their services and to carry on, as the Bill rather quaintly puts it, banking services. The expectations of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) will be realised.
I ask the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart) to accept that there are limits to the extent to which we can forecast the future. We can give Trustee Savings Banks these much wider powers to extend their activities. Their success will be dependent largely upon their own efforts and the way in which they solve the problems of the relationship between the Central Trustee Savings Bank and the constituent Trustee Savings Banks.
Our discussions have in the main been constructive, although we have tended to

concentrate on one bank to a rather surprising extent. I am pleased that we have allayed some of the serious doubts that have been raised about that bank. I hope that we shall be able to see the early establishment of the Central Board. It would ease the transfer of the TSBA and its subsidiaries and give the Central Board time to get its administrative structure implemented properly. I look forward to seeing this take place quickly.
I emphasise, however, that the early establishment of the Central Board is not an attempt to bring pressure on the North Staffordshire Trustee Savings Bank. We want to ensure that the amalgamation takes place in the interests of its depositors. That has been at the forefront of our minds on this matter.
I am sure that the House in its final consideration of the Bill will wish the Trustee Savings Banks well in their new role. I believe that they are well equipped to meet the new challenges which they will face and I look forward to their future success.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVERS' AGES AND HOURS OF WORK) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Schedule 1

CONSEQUENTIAL AND OTHER AMENDMENTS

11.6 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 22, leave out "9" and insert "16".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may discuss the following Amendments:
No. 2, in page 10, line 11, leave out "9" and insert "16".
No. 3, in page 10, line 16, leave out "9" and insert "16".

Mr. Hannam: These amendments which are in my name and those of other members of the all-party Disablement Group, seek to embody the principle


that minibuses should be regarded as normal motor cars when operated by private operators.
Last summer the Disablement Group became extremely concerned at certain restrictions which were being applied to local authority social service departments, especially in the West Country, and to various voluntary organisations when they came to use their minibuses, which had often been donated through various fund-raising activites and by various charitable bodies. The problem which arose in Devon was related to charges being levied for trips which were then regarded as having rendered those journeys as being for hire or reward. I shall not go further into those details, because the problem was largely resolved and the banning of the use of minibuses by Devon County Council and other local authorities was rescinded.
However, a great deal of uncertainty remains and it is in the light of the need for minibuses to be regarded, for driving purposes, as normal motor cars, that my hon. Friends and I seek to amend any such traffic laws as we are discussing tonight so as to allow vehicles carrying up to 16 passengers to be regarded as small passenger-carrying vehicles and therefore within the requirements of normal driving licences. Amendment No. 3 deals specifically with the definition of a small passenger vehicle, but as the other definitions of "small goods vehicle" and "medium-sized goods vehicle" also refer to passenger-carrying adaptations, I have included them in the other two amendments.
In the Adjournment debate on 19th January this year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) raised the whole subject of the hire and reward anomaly which had cropped up in his own area of Devon, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made the following remarks, which are very important in this context:
I turn to the effect of the EEC regulation. This regulation requires, in the absence of professional experience, that any driver of a vehicle carrying more than nine persons should hold a certificate of professional competence. This has been interpreted by some to mean that drivers must have a public service vehicle driver's licence. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport is seeking exemption for private minibuses from all the provisions of the regulation. In the meantime, he proposes to

recognise an ordinary driving licence for a motor car as proof of competence to drive a minibus.—[Official Report, 19th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 1104.]
This matter affects many disablement organisations, many schools for the handicapped, local authorities and voluntary agencies. These bodies have raised funds and purchased minibuses in order to transport handicapped and elderly people—and young handicapped people to schools—on journeys for which normal transport is not necessarily available.
Following our representations through the all-party group to the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled, the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythen-shawe (Mr. Morris), the hon. Gentleman wrote on our behalf to the Minister for Transport on 6th February. I shall quote one paragraph from his letter, which he has made available to us all, because it is relevant to these amendments:
But the Road Traffic Act can nevertheless sometimes impede arrangements for transport which would be valuable in providing greater mobility for disabled people. I should be most grateful for an assurance which I could pass on to the Group"—
that is, the all-party Disablement Group—
that this factor is being given the fullest possible weight in your examination of the whole position. I fully recognise that you have to consider the implications of any change for public transport generally, but mobility for the disabled is, I am sure, a special element of the problem: as you and I are both reminded fairly frequently, there are hazards to other ways in which disabled people may seek mobility on the roads.
That quotation from the letter sent by the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled and my earlier quotation from the speech of the Under-Secretary in the Adjournment debate accept, in effect, the principle which I propose in the amendment, that the minibus should be regarded as a motor car for the purposes of the driving regulations, and we wish to ensure that that principle is embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Hector Monro: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in this series of amendments, for the many reasons which he has advanced. It affects the handicapped and the school minibus, and perhaps other vehicles carrying more than nine passengers, in respect of which one would gladly give a driver with an


ordinary licence and with proper experience a chance to drive people about on their lawful business.
This matter is all the more important today because of the general uncertainty surrounding public transport. In this context, one is concerned about the amount of subsidy which local authorities can afford in times of great stringency to give to the bus companies to provide services for the general public. It is fairly clear from a general survey of local authorities in Scotland, in particular, that they are certainly not able to spend more money on public transport, with the result that services have to be reduced to keep within their overall spending limits. Inevitably, this means that the services provided by the major bus companies are having to be withdrawn, with the twin unhappy consequences of lack of public transport provision and loss of jobs for the bus crews.
In this situation, the only alternative may be some form of privately operated minibus. Where there may well be no provision at all, we should allow vehicles which will carry between nine and 16 passengers a chance to be operated by a person who does not have a PSV licence. Of course, one would rather feel that any form of public transport was operated by a highly qualified driver who held a PSV licence, but we do not all have that opportunity today in the present financial climate, and I would radier have a minibus driven by an experienced driver without a PSV licence than have no transport at all.
That is the crux of my hon. Friend's argument. Vast areas of the countryside now have no public transport. Motor cars are becoming more expensive to run—perhaps even more so by the middle of next month—and getting about our rural areas is becoming a major headache, especially for elderly people who cannot go by bicycle or cannot walk and who certainly have no public transport.
I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic reply. This is the type of issue which we should be pressing very firmly on our colleagues in Europe which is against our interests. If the present Government can set out to renegotiate with our colleagues in Europe the whole matter of our entry into the Common

Market, surely they can do something about negotiating the matter of who is able to drive minibuses and who is not. They are making very heavy weather of this issue.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks)rose—

Mr. Monro: I am not allowing the Minister to intervene because he has plenty of time in which to reply, and I have in any case come to the end of what I want to say.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: Those who followed the Second Reading debate will remember that the subject of this group of amendments was briefly discussed. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and his hon. Friends for raising this topic.
Those of us who have organisations in our constituencies which operate their own transport have been made aware of the wide concern because of the uncertainty about the regulations. Despite reassuring noises from the Minister, I believe it is true to say that the uncertainty still exists and is far from being resolved.
This is a pity, because if the provisions of the Road Traffic Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), had come into force, it is clear that many of the anomalies would have been removed and it is highly likely that we should have a far better level of services, particularly in the rural areas, than we have today. It is a great pity that the Government have so far neglected to consider this matter in great detail, or, if they have, that they have failed to bring forward any proposals.
Having said that, I would be the first to admit that there are one or two matters which should be borne in mind before we readily accept this group of amendments. First, there is the figure of 16, which gives rise to problems. Most insurance companies would prefer the figure of 12. This is a crucial figure and it is very relevant. When a youth club or a disablement group decides to purchase one of these vehicles, very often the only way in which the vehicle can be operated is by some form of sharing the cost of


a journey. Then, if care is not taken, the club runs foul of the complicated insurance regulations. That is a pity.
Then there is the matter of drivers. At the moment the driver of a private car merely has to have a normal driving licence. This means that if the amendments were accepted, from the age of 17 such a driver would be qualified to drive a vehicle containing up to 16 people, regardless of his experience. There is some anxiety that some of these vehicles would be driven by people with very little driving experience.
Furthermore there is the question of the vehicle itself. Some voluntary organisations have purchased vehicles which have become somewhat old in the tooth, and there is the danger that such vehicles are subject only to the existing MOT regulations. It is feared that the MOT regulations are not sufficiently stringent, and that therefore there is a potential public danger.
In addition, in areas of the country where it is essential that the private operator should continue to run a public service, he may feel that the kind of competition that he will get from voluntary organisations could well undermine his own business. If this were to come about and the public bus service disappeared, people who did not belong to the voluntary organisation would be without any transport. I am not attacking the amendments, but I am pointing out that a considerable number of problems arise from them.
We are still waiting for the Government to come forward with their conclusions. We have already had a number of interesting experiments and the one in Norfolk was mentioned on Second Reading. It is clear that the Government's proposals are insufficient to deal with the problem in the country at large. The amendments clearly indicate that people in many parts of the country are becoming impatient with the Government about this issue. I hope that the Minister will tell us that this is one of the subjects we shall hear about when the tablets come down from on high—when the Government produce their consultative document on the future of public transport. We feel that a decision should be reached.
I reiterate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) about the uncertainty and the fact that sometimes these vehicles cannot be used as they might, which often makes the difference between there being a service and not. In rural areas services and the number of miles travelled are being reduced weekly. The question cannot be deferred for two years or so. It is rapidly becoming urgent.

Mr. Marks: As one who has seized every opportunity for raising matters about which I feel strongly, for instance, those of injustice and the need for legislation, I admire the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for tabling the amendment. Its effect would be to reduce the age for driving certain vehicles from 21 to 17.
But even if the House accepted the amendment, it would not be possible for us to carry it out, because EEC Regulation 543/69 overrides our own Road Traffic Act. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is short, technical and un-controversial. The amendment would not allow vehicles with more than nine seats, inclusive of the driver's, to be driven by persons under 21 unless they already held licences.
I appreciate the anxiety about the minibus controversy. I have dealt with it at length in previous debates. If a vehicle is used for hire or reward, the driver must have a public service vehicle licence, but if it is not, my right hon. Friend the Minister accepts the ordinary driving licence as a certificate of professional competence to drive a minibus.
The Bill, concerned as it is with drivers' ages, cannot deal with all the matters suggested. EEC Regulation 543/69 is being reconsidered by the Community and there are signs that some of our views are being taken into consideration. Perhaps I should remind hon. Members that parts of Regulation 543/69 came into effect in 1973 as a result of our joining the European Community. The Bill is largely designed to cover up the gaps and to make certain clarifications to the regulation.

Mr. Hannam: My hon. Friends have pointed out some of the problems we face over rural transportation, insurance and the age of drivers. I accept the need


for much greater clarification by Government of these areas of concern. The Minister has correctly pointed out that the Bill directly affects the ages of drivers rather than the use of minibuses. I accept that. In consequence of his remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Marks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I had hoped that this last stage of the Bill in this House would be purely formal. The Bill had general support on Second Reading and in Committee. At both stages, it was generally recognised that the sooner it reached the statute book the better. I hope that the House will not take literally the Opposition motion on the Order Paper.
The change in the threshold of the licensing scheme for heavy goods vehicle drivers provided for in the Bill has been anticipated by manufacturers and operators who, respectively, have made and bought vehicles which, following regulations after enactment, will cease to be heavy goods vehicles. Some at least of these vehicles—we are told—are standing idle until they can be driven by drivers who do not hold vocational drivers' licenses. Labour Members have expressed concern at this situation during both of the earlier stages of consideration. I have explained that the matter can only be resolved by early enactment.
I was, therefore, surprised to learn that hon. Members wanted to avail themselves of this further opportunity for debate. They may want to draw attention again to the practical difficulties inherent in the drivers' hours provisions of EEC Regulation 543/69—in particular those associated with the 450 kilometre limit and the daily driving limit. I have already acknowledged the problems and referred to my hon. Friend's efforts to secure changes but I shall be glad to hear what further points hon. Members may wish to raise. If they speak on these matters, however, I would ask them to bear in mind that this Bill—in so far as it relates to drivers' hours—merely provides enabling powers to allow us to harmonise our domestic law on drivers' hours with that in the EEC regulation when, eventu

ally, the drivers' hours provisions of the regulations come into force. The Bill will have no effect on when that will be or on the provisions of the Regulation at that time.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Essentially this Bill does two things: it makes changes in minimum driving age and it gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations about drivers' hours. It is about the second issue that most of the discussion has taken place in Committee, paticularly about the effect of EEC Regulation 543/69. It is because of that regulation that this Bill is needed. This regulation has serious effects on both the road haulage and the passenger transport industries.
There is particularly concern over two of the Common Market rules—namely, that hours of driving should be restricted to eight per day rather than our 10, and that journeys should be restricted to 450 kilometres a day instead of distance being unlimited, in Committee we pressed the Government to seek amendments to these rules and not to be content with deferment. We said that they should get better rules. The Under-Secretary assured us on both points. He said:
We have a great many other ideas and there is a great deal of negotiation on this.
He also said:
We shall continue to negotiate very strongly in Brussels. We have been accused sometimes of being too tough."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 24th Feb. 1976; c. 26–7.]
He did not say who had accused the Government of being too tough—and wisely so. At the end of last week, the Commission published its revised proposals. I find it strange that we are considering such an important development since the end of the Committee but there is no reference to be found to it in the Under-Secretary's speech. The fact is that the revised rules do not meet the British case in any way.
Over the past 24 hours I have been gathering the views of the road haulage and passenger transport industries. Their view is that the proposed regulations, even after the changes now proposed by the Commission, are a disaster. They say that costs will be pushed up for the public


and that many bus passenger services will be put in jeopardy.
Only a few hours ago, I received a telegram from Mr. Skyrme, the President of the Confederation of the British Road Passenger Transport and the Chief Executive of the National Bus Company. He writes that the regulations
bear no relationship to public need or economic reality. It must ask you support in gaining vital flexibility. In the present form the regulations would be incapable of being observed.
What are the effects of the regulations? First, let us consider the road haulage industry. The original proposal was that no driver should work for more than eight hours. The Commission now says that twice a week he may work for nine hours. But that is virtually a meaningless concession. It still put many trunk routes out of range, especially those from Scotland. The net effect of that change is negligible.
The Commission says that it has made an important concession on distance limits. It has come up with a proposal under which the 450 kilometre limit remains unless the vehicle has a tachograph. If it has one the distance is unlimited, but a driver could still run foul of the eight-hour rule.
The British operator might be able to get some advantage if he installs a tachograph, but if he does so he will come up against the opposition of the drivers and the Transport and General Workers Union. That is some concession! By installing a tachograph the operator adds considerably to his costs. That is a point that we must get across to the public.
The implementation of the regulations will cost big money. The Freight Transport Association has estimated that the restrictions on drivers' hours will cost about £350 million. If the industry is to have to take on the tachograph as well, we are talking of a total cost of over £500 million. The Freight Transport Association puts it higher than that, but I rest on a conservative estimate.
We are talking on the same scale as the money now going to British Rail about which the Government are so concerned. The money will come directly from the public. Costs will have to be

passed on. The only effect of the rules must be higher prices for the public.
It must be stressed that no area will be worse affected than Scotland. Great anxiety has been shown by my Scottish colleagues. It is notable that my hon. Friends from Scotland are the only Members on the Opposition Benches who are present to discuss this vital matter from a Scottish point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has passed to me a letter from one of his constituents who is a haulage contractor. He writes:
In common with many operators of longdistance transport in the North of Scotland, we are deeply concerned by the effect which this regulation will have on our entire operation. In our particular case, we operate a daily trunk fish service from Aberdeen to the Humber ports and we estimate that the reduction in driving hours and mileages could well necessitate an increase in the labour aspect of our operations in the order of 50 per cent.
The Scottish Freight Transport Association has pointed out that Scotland is in a particularly vulnerable position. It has confirmed Scotland's greater dependence on road transport by showing that currently, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, vehicle journeys are 20 per cent. longer and that overall transport costs are 10 to 12 per cent. higher. It says that the regulations will drastically reduce daily driving hours, limit daily mileage, require the fitting of tachographs, and create a 20 per cent. reduction in productivity, additional administration costs and a relative increase in hourly wage rates of over 30 per cent.
If anything, the position of the passenger transport industry is even worse. It is most concerned about the rules about rest periods. The new Community requirements on daily rest periods will mean either having fewer services or more drivers, and thus more costs. The result will almost certainly be reduced services, particularly in the rural areas, as well as higher fares, while the requirement of the weekly rest period regulations looks like killing off many weekend services.
The weekly rest period under the revised rules now proposed is a 39-hour minimum consecutive period. But weekend bus services in this country depend crucially upon voluntary overtime. Under these proposals, such voluntary overtime will simply be prevented, leading to financial loss for drivers and the loss of these services to the public.
Another service which will suffer is the long-day excursion trip, where the driver is unable to meet the eight-hour time restriction. A trip like one from London to Stratford-on-Avon, or from the country into a city like London or Glasgow, is precisely the sort of excursion which is the area of transport now growing most, but which will be knocked out if these regulations come into force in the way the Commission proposes.
We face an extremely serious situation. The next stage will be one of negotiation and consultation, culminating in the meeting of the Ministers later this year. We again say to the Government that their aim should be not to get deferment of these regulations, but to negotiate an appreciably better deal.
It should not be thought that we alone want changes. Other European countries want them. M. Leblanc, President of the International Road Transport Union, representing companies in all European countries, has stated:
The regulations lack both simplicity and flexibility to be adapted to the many aspects of road transport.
He added:
We do not oppose social progress but we want flexible and realistic regulations with which we can collaborate.
That is surely the point. What is needed is more flexibility to meet the needs of Britain, of British transport, both freight and passenger. That so far we have not achieved, or anything like it. In passing this Bill, the Government are, I hope, under no illusion about the deep concern about the eventual regulations and rules which will appear. We urge them to try again on this vital matter.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am grateful for the opportunity to support briefly but forcefully the eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfleld (Mr. Fowler), particularly on Regulation 543/69, which vitally affects the interests of Scotland. I am astonished that the Bench on which the Members of the Scottish National Party normally sit is completely deserted.

Mr. Monro: And the Liberal Bench.

Mr. Sproat: And the Liberal Bench. I hope that for once the Scottish Press will note who does the work in the House on behalf of Scotland.
The Minister said that he had taken on board the worries of the industry about the regulation, and no doubt he has, but it was noticeable that tonight he barely mentioned the pronouncement of the EEC Commission last week. In common with most other hon. Members and with almost everybody in the road transport industry, I regard Regulation 543/69 as being totally impracticable. I oppose a daily distance limitation on driving of 450 kilometres. Although all operators in the North and North-East of Scotland are concerned about the matter, I should like to mention a particular example which puts into perspective what we are fighting.
Every day the trunk fishing service runs from Aberdeen to Hull, carrying the highest quality fish. The run is not 281 miles but 363 miles. If it were stopped, there would be serious repercussions for the fishing trade. Although the Minister does not have responsibility for the fishing industry—and he may thank his lucky stars for that—I am sure that he is aware that the fishing industry is going through the worst crisis it has had probably this century. It would be an intolerable body blow if the fish service between Aberdeen and Hull were to be disrupted. The view of many of my constituents in the transport business is that if Regulation 543/69 came into force it would make their business totally uneconomic, thus adding to the problems of unemployment.
I am opposed to the proposed daily driving period of eight hours as against the present maximum of 10 hours under United Kingdom regulations. I am also opposed to the total lack of flexibility in the regulations. Different countries have different problems, and the EEC regulations must recognise this. It should be the right of national Governments to introduce exemptions from the EEC regulations after proper consultation with the industry and the unions, and they should then be able to inform the Commission of their intentions.
The Minister did not make much mention of the Commission's pronouncement last week. He owes it to the House to give a little more information on it. I do not say that in a partisan way: I really want information, and I know that the industry does. The reaction of people in the industry is extremely unfavourable. Basically they say "We might as,


well have got nothing because the changes proposed by the EEC are useless". To change from eight hours a day to eight hours with an option of nine hours a day twice a week is ludicrous. What are we in Aberdeen to do with our fish on the other five days? Is it to rot on the quayside, or be less fresh when it reaches Hull? This proposal is totally unacceptable.
It is suggested that a driver may travel more than 281 miles in a day if he has a tachograph fitted to the lorry. I am sure that the Minister knows the drivers' objections to what they call "the spy in the cab". We should still be up against the hours' barrier anyway.
I understand that it is open to us to apply for exemptions provided that we do so by the end of 1977. Perhaps the Minister could confirm this and indicate for what exemptions the Government feel we ought to apply. Unless he can give us much fuller guarantees, particularly about the way this proposal will affect Scotland, I cannot guarantee that I shall not divide the House.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister should by now have realised how serious this Bill is to Scotland. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) for pointing out the damage the Common Market is doing to Scotland and to Great Britain as a whole.
In the past week, we have seen three examples of what is being done to Britain. First, there was the White Paper on Public Expenditure, which made clear that in the next five years we shall pay into the Common Market £1,200 million more than we shall receive in net payments. Secondly, we heard earlier today of the devastating effect on living standards in Great Britain of the EEC food price agreement. Now, thirdly, we are discussing this Bill.
I am particularly concerned about Clause 2, which deals with drivers' hours. Am I right in thinking that if we give the Bill a Third Reading we could discuss any future changes in drivers' hours—which could have a devastating effect in Scotland—only in a one and a half hour debate at the end of a parliamentary day, or in one of those dreadful morning

Committees which are so inconvenient for hon. Members who are serving on Standing Committees?
What will be the position if the Common Market decides to revise the regulations? If the Commission agrees that regulations should be applied in a particular way in Great Britain and this Parliament disagrees, is Community law or our decision superior?
What estimate have the Government made of the effect of the Bill on Scottish industry? I sometimes holiday in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) and I know the problems the islanders on Arran have in getting their goods to market. The Bill will have a devastating effect on the island's agriculture, especially in view of the difficulties over the steamer service. Lorries have to carry goods from farms to the steamer which, because of the problems with the service, often goes to the wrong port on the mainland and arrives considerably later than expected. The Bill seems to involve considerable extra costs. Has any estimate been made of the effect of the proposed changes on the Scottish economy?
Perhaps the Minister could also say a little about the changes advanced by the EEC Commission last week. I understand that they are to be discussed by the Common Market Transport Ministers in June. June is an important time for us, because the regulations should have been applied in Britain on 1st January, but a six-month stay of execution was given by a recent order, and that takes us to June. We shall be in a state of uncertainty about which regulations apply until the Transport Ministers meet in June.
Will the Minister tell us what is meant by the proposal that the exemptions should be only until the end of 1977? Does that mean that if the Commission's amendments are accepted, all these changes will have to be made in 1977?
I am appalled and shocked to see that no Member of the Scottish National Party or of the Liberal Party is present, particularly as some of those hon. Members represent areas furthest away from the market where the problem is worst.
Have the hon. Members for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and Dunbartonshire


East (Mrs. Bain) any idea of the devastating damage that will be done to employment in their constituencies? Does the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) know what damage will be done? This is a matter which affects areas in the far North of Scotland, the North-East and the Islands, and it is shameful that, representing a Glasgow constituency, I should be talking about these problems because the SNP and Liberal Members who represent those areas and are supposed to represent their constituents are not here.
We are talking about a driver's working day being eight hours as opposed to 10 hours. It seems that the SNP Members and the Liberals are imposing their own Common Market regulations on their hours of attendance in the House. I hope that the Scottish people will note that. At 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night, no matter how important the business, the National Members—and sometimes the Liberal Members—disappear like snow off a dyke.
I mention this not to criticise my Scottish colleagues, but to ask the Minister not to think because he faces only Conservatives that this is not a matter of great concern throughout Scotland. This is a matter of serious concern to every person in Scotland, and something must be done.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Monro: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in their criticism of the Bill. Like them, I am astonished and critical that no member of the Scottish National Party or the Liberal Party is here tonight.
I wish to protest about the lack of information on certain aspects of the Bill. I know that it has been largely redrafted in Committee—

Mr. Marks: No.

Mr. Monro: I have looked at the proceedings and the amendments in Committee, and the Bill has been largely redrafted. I criticise the Minister for the shallowness of his reply to the Second Reading debate. There was no time limit on that debate, yet the part of the Minister's speech concerned with problems of the livestock haulage industry occupied only seven lines of print. This point cannot be shrugged off. There was no

reason why he could not have taken half an hour more to deal with it.
I want to examine the problems that the Bill will create for the agricultural haulage industry and the road haulage industry generally. I want the Minister to deal in much greater depth with the effect of the Bill in view of the announcement of proposals last Thursday. In The Scotsman of 5th March there is a report by Mr. Michael Hornsby from Brussels which says,
New proposals for the harmonisation of working conditions in the EEC's road haulage industry, which were announced here today by the European Commission, offer an important let-out clause to Britain and other member states which have pleaded inability to meet their treaty obligations.
Later it says,
The proposals also provide, however, for any member state to apply up until the end of 1977 for exemption from particular aspects of the new regulations provided that she can satisfy the Commission that implementing them would present real difficulties.
As I shall show, there are immense difficulties. Before we contemplate approving this measure I shall want to know—[Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but this is a very serious matter.

Mr. Marks: This Bill deals merely with drivers' hours and ages. It is a technical Bill. The regulation to which the hon. Member refers—No. 543/69—was wholeheartedly accepted by the hon. Member's Government. The whole point of the European Communities Act was that it gave blanket effect to all the previous Community legislation, including regulations, and the hon. Member supported that Act.

Mr. Monro: The Minister takes great pleasure in getting that point off his chest whenever he can. The Bill, however, deals with drivers' hours and will affect the 450-kilometre limit. It does not deal only with drivers' ages and hours. The road haulage industry is not daft. It knows what is in the Bill and it is critical of it.

Mr. Marks: If the hon. Member is claiming that the road haulage industry is critical of the Bill, I hope that he will quote what it says. The Bill has been brought in after consultation with the industry, and as far as I know has been approved by the industry without further


comment. The hon. Gentleman is talking about proposals issued by the EEC Commissioners in the last few days. They are not decisions of the Government and they have not yet been approved by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Monro: The proposals announced last week will have an effect on the working of this Bill if the Minister is prepared to fight for that. My main criticism of the Government is that they do not appear to have done anything about improving the situation. The Minister seems to think that the road haulage industry is represented only by its governing body. A large number of road hauliers have telephoned me to say that the Bill will ruin them. I intend to explain why.
We want to know what the Minister will do about deferring this legislation and the very important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. This is enabling legislation which will give rise to regulations, on which we shall have a debate of at best an hour and a half, with no possibility of amendment. That is quite unsatisfactory on such an important issue.
I will not go over the argument about ages, because that has been touched on. I am concerned about the hours of work and the distance limit of 450 kilometres or 280 miles. Will the limit on hours refer to eight hours behind the wheel or to an eight-hour working day? As my hon. Friend said, coach trips will be curtailed or become very expensive if a driver can be on duty for only eight hours in any day. Even if he drives for only four hours and spends the next four with his feet up on the pier at Blackpool, he will not be allowed to drive home. 
This applies not only to coach trips for the elderly or for tourists but also to trips to various sporting events. If the round trip exceeds eight hours, including two hours at a stadium, two drivers will be needed, which will add enormously to the expense.
But my main criticism relates to agriculture. I want some practical answers from a Minister who so far has given none. Time as well as distance is important here. There are only 108 miles of motorway in Scotland, mainly running from east to west, including 40 miles be-

tween Edinburgh and Glasgow which are not generally used for the transport of livestock. That, and the fish trade from Aberdeen, is mainly on a north-south axis. On very few agricultural runs will the vehicles be able to exceed their speed limit of 40 mph and will thus have much lower average speeds than vehicles which can use the motorways. So the combined formula of hours against mileage will be much more important in Scotland than in areas with an extensive motorway network.
What does the Minister expect will happen to the haulage of livestock? Countless hundreds of loads of sheep and lambs travel from the far North and the Borders to the South of England. What will happen to his lorryload of livestock when the driver reaches the 280-mile limit at Birmingham? He cannot park in a lay-by or at a service station for a prolonged rest period. The stock has to be watered. Are the Government prepared to set up lairages and staff to look after livestock in transit?
This applies particularly to the movement of dairy stock. As I am sure the Minister is aware, most heifers and dairy cows are sold within a day or two of calving. They are milked before they leave the market of an evening and it is vital that they are milked as soon as possible the next day, which is normally when they reach the farm to which they have been sold. However, that farm may be more than 280 miles away or more than an eight-hour drive away. What is the transport driver to do with a load of cows desperately in need of milking with nowhere to go and do the job? The Minister has not taken on board just what a problem this will cause to the livestock haulier.
There is also the problem of movement to the market. The country livestock haulier, with perhaps four or five vehicles at the most and a driver for each lorry, has to bring stock to the market from the crack of dawn. Those same drivers have to distribute the lambs or cows to their new owners later that night. That will involve a much longer day than the eight-hour day.
The Minister must tell his colleagues in Europe that sufficient thought has not been given to this measure, that he accepts criticism for not realising the problems earlier but that he cannot allow


this to continue now that the full facts have been brought to light.
I accept that the Scottish Freight Transport Association is in favour of the Bill, but it says specifically that there must be more flexibility than is apparent at present and that special industries should have the right to special consideration. That covers the livestock haulage industry. The Scottish Freight Transport Association is also concerned that costs are likely to increase by £300 million, of which £70 million will be increased costs in Scotland. In a country where transport means so much that will be a severe penalty.
Mr. Patrick Hunter Gordon of the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry has been in touch with me from Inverness. That Council is an important body in Scotland. Mr. Patrick Hunter Gordon is concerned about the formula, to which I referred, of distance in relation to a driver's hours, how far a driver can travel over the difficult Scottish roads and the possibility that the driving period should be lengthened.
All those issues need a practical answer tonight, not just the theoretical one of having further discussions with the industry. Before the Bill is passed I want to know what the poor lorry driver will do on the M6 when he reaches Spaghetti Junction and has to let about 300 lambs out of his truck. The Minister is heading into practical problems left, right and centre. Will the Minister return to Europe to seek greater flexibility, greater deferment and a greater practical knowledge of what this is all about?

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Fry: In commenting on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), the Minister seemed to ask why we were having a debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. He described this as a purely technical Bill which the former Conservative Government had accepted.
But the regulations which the Bill empowers the Minister to introduce are being changed and we greatly hope that they are capable of being changed much more before being applied to the United Kingdom. One reason for the debate is the Press coverage of what appeared to be the changes in the regulations which were recently discussed in Brussels. For

example, The Times of 4th March has the headline
Compomise suggested on EEC lorry regulations.
The Financial Times of 5th March said:
Driving hours rules eased.
Those of us who had made a considerable study of the question were aware that, far from making the matter easier, in certain respects the suggested regulations will make it much worse. Surely it is our responsibility to see that the implications of these regulations are fully debated in the House so that the powers that be in Brussels may be fully aware of the strong feeling shown tonight, particularly by Conservative Members from Scotland. We have a duty to impress upon the Minister that there is strong feeling on the question and that we are far from satisfied with what has been proposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly pointed out the main disadvantage of the new regulations. I will make two points which he did not make. The first concerns the proposed rest days under the latest proposals from Brussels. As I understand it, these would amount to no less than a 39-hour gap, particularly at weekends. This would cause considerable difficulties in the operation of a turn-round in shift, whether it be for haulage or for bus services.
Secondly, there is the proposal that there should be 28 working days' holiday. This will add considerably to the bill of both the haulage industry and the bus industry. The Government must bear this in mind in negotiations they undertake.
One point which has hardly been touched on is the fact that technically speaking we in this country are supposed to have tachographs. There was no special dispensation on the issue of tachographs. It was quietly left on one side while we awaited the outcome of the deliberations over the question of drivers' hours.
As researches in the United States have shown—where in some States tachographs are essential and in other States they are not—there does not appear to be any indication of any great advantage either on grounds of road safety or of efficiency in the road transport industry.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) made an eloquent plea to the effect that there were considerable difficulties in the West country, particularly in Cornwall, about distance and the mileage limit. Difficulties exist not just over the problem of distance. As my hon. Friend said, there are real difficulties concerned with the longdistance coach operations, particularly excusions. The type of people that use excursions are those who usually cannot afford to run their own car or buy a ticket on British Rail at the present level of fares. Therefore, probably the worst-off section of the Community will suffer if this fact is not taken on board.
Most of the dispute that appears to be taking place at Brussels arises because these regulations are being put forward as social regulations rather than as transport regulations. What is needed is a look at the whole matter from a transport point of view, because this is where the main difficulties are arising. I hope that the Minister will inform his hon. Friend who is conducting the negotiations at Brussels that this is what the Conservative Opposition want him to do.
There have been three excellent interventions by my hon. Friends, and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) whose love for the EEC is well known. Indeed, he expressed his feelings in his usual eloquent way tonight. Certain questions were asked by my hon. Friends and I hope that the Minister will give some answers tonight. I think that the Minister has been—as he was in Committee—somewhat chary of giving answers. When I asked him questions similar to those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) about the period of delay, he said to me:
I am sure he"—
that is me—
would not want me to go into the whole of the negotiating position of the Government in the negotiations which are taking place on whether there should be exemption for certain parts of the industry and whether we should apply for exemption from the regulations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 24th February, 1976, c. 30.]
We are asking for some assurances on these points because unless we ask for them now we shall have very little

opportunity to ask for them in the future. Probably the next opportunity will be when the regulations are brought back to the House for us to decide in an hour-and-a-half whether we accept them. I remind the Minister that but for Conservative Members in the other place we would not have had the affirmative method of adopting these regulations. They would have been subject to the negative procedure.
We believe that the Government must do more to come clean. They must indicate that they fully have the interests of the British transport industry at heart. If the Minister can show that, he will have the complete support of the Opposition. However, if he goes to Brussels and it is suspected that he will meekly submit to the latest version of the regulations, we assure him of an unfriendly welcome when he brings those regulations back.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful to hon. Members for the useful service they have performed in drawing attention to practical difficulties inherent in EEC Regulation 543/69 and in particular those associated with the 450-kilometre limit and the daily driving limit. Their message in effect is that the Regulation must be made more flexible, that there must be more provision for national derogations to take account of local or regional difficulties, and that the United Kingdom needs a further deferment as well as amendment of the regulation.
My hon. Friend will be glad to have this support for the representations he has already made to the Commission and to our partners in the Community. These representations, made by this Government and not by any previous Government, have already resulted in the Commission granting six months' deferment to the end of June. No doubt our friends in the Community will take due note of what has been said here tonight, as indeed will my hon. Friend and I. We shall make further representations after consultation with both sides of the industry, and with the House.
The Commission has just announced proposals for amendment of the regulation. However, I point out that the Commission did it in the form of a Press


release and the Government have not yet received the full details.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who has suddenly begun to take an interest in the Bill, will, I am sure, be only too glad to hear that we shall recognise all the possibilities for debate, including the Third Reading debate and the way in which the House deals with Community business. We must consider the regulations as they go before the Scrutiny Committee. This will certainly be done in this case.
The Government are not responsible for the Commission's proposals. The Bill cannot affect the Commission's proposals. I notice that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is nodding, and understandably so. He resigned from the previous Conservative Government because the Government of the day accepted and brought in a European Communities Act which accepted all these regulations. Certain hon. Members who have not spoken tonight supported the then Government in that action. I accept that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart took a strong line in that respect. That is the fact about these regulations. They are not something which we should bring before the House. They are already the law for this country. There is no question, therefore, of statutory instruments and amendments. It is the law.
If the Community as a whole decides to make changes in those regulations, we can then come before the House with the regulations to discuss. But it must be done under the European Communities Act, by a decision of the Community as a whole, and I remind the House again that that Act was passed by the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are bringing pressure on the other member countries of the EEC so to do?

Mr. Marks: I have said that we have not waited for this Bill to be introduced, or for the Third Reading debate, before doing that. It has been going on for some months. We have got some reconsideration. We have secured one deferment, and possibly another one, and we shall now examine the proposals which the Commission has made. They are proposals. They are not the law. They

are not a new regulation. The regulation is already in existence.
The Government have been pressing for the renegotiation of this Regulation, and I am sure that, after very considerable discussion in the House—this debate today will certainly be noted, as will all the others—the sensible course is to press for the amendments that we need. In the meantime, we need to ensure that when agreement has been reached, we have the power to honour the obligations put on us by the Government of the day in 1972, and confirmed by the people of this country three years later.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Minister is giving the impression that he does not know what the new proposals of the Commission are. He told us that he had not received the Press release about them. Are we to understand that the Department of the Environment is waiting to receive the Press release and that, unlike any other organisation in this country, it has not made its own inquiries? Are we take it that the hon. Gentleman will not tell us anything or attempt to answer any of the questions and issues which have been raised tonight?

Mr. Marks: I am not in a position to do that. I think that that should be done after very careful examination of the Commission's proposals and after discussion with both sides of the industry and discussion in the House. We take this matter very seriously. We have been agitating for amendments to the regulations. Now that a proposal has come from the Commission, we should examine it carefully before making our pronouncements and going into discussions. We have been making efforts to persuade other Governments. It is not the Commission which will make the decision. I have heard threats that the Bill will not be approved until I have made a long statement. Let me assure the House that both sides of the industry want the Bill and want it quickly. I ask the House to give it a Third Reading.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Cannot the Minister say whether the Government consider that the proposals put forward by the Commission are satisfactory? As far as I know, there is a unanimous view in the road haulage industry and the passenger transport industry that they in no sense meet the British industry's case. Given that strong reaction, and given


the reaction also of Mr. Skyrme, whom the Minister must know, is not the hon. Gentleman prepared to tell us whether he considers it satisfactory? Is he not prepared to say that this is not a satisfactory deal for the British industry? Will he not stand up and say that?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Question agreed to.

VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY

Ordered,

That Sir George Young be discharged from the Select Committee on Violence in the Family and that Mr. Peter Bottomley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

12.27 a.m.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: The House has debated the general employment situation on two occasions recently. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity of raising the topic of the employment and training of young people because I think that there are certain trends in the employment situation which have very serious implications for youth employment in the years ahead. No one can be happy with the present level of unemployment in the 16 to 24 age category, but, looking ahead, it seems to me that there is likely to be a further shrinking in job opportunities available to people in this age group.
I think the Minister himself has recently been involved in discussions with other member Governments of the OECD, and they have been aware that unemployment among young people is rising at a higher rate than unemployment among adult workers. Moreover, he will know that in the National Youth Employment Council's Report "Unqualified, Untrained, Unemployed", which came out a year or two ago, mention was made of the reduction in the number of apprenticeships and below-craft level employment during the decade 1961–71 which amounted to about 390,000 jobs.
I know that more young people are staying on for further and full-time education, but the fact remains that, looking at birth rate predictions over the next five years or so, we shall be faced with a steady increase in the number of 16 to 17 year-olds coming on to the labour market.
I want to raise the general question of the apprenticeship system. There are those who feel "We have seen it all before", I do not believe that we are experiencing a repeat of the 1920s to 1930s situation, when there was a premium on employing young people because they were reckoned to be a cheap form of labour. On the contrary, the problem in the 1970s is that young people starting apprenticeships at 16 do so at 45 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the adult rate for the job. Allowing for day or block release facilities, the cost of employing a young person is sometimes almost as high as the cost of employing a qualified journeyman.
Some rather frustrated trade union officials have recently remarked on the difficulty they have with members fighting for the right of redundancy payments and not the right to work when faced with the threat of losing a job. That is not a problem with young people. Their problem is one of making the right start.
The Minister will appreciate the expectations of young people when they leave school and their parents' desire for them to have a satisfying career in industry, commerce or service employment. The number of young people entering apprenticeships has always been particularly high in this country. In 1974, the latest date for which figures are available, 43 per cent. of boys leaving school began apprenticeships. In Scotland the figure


was even higher at 53 per cent. On Clyde-side the figure has always been higher because of the nature of the industries in the area.
Ten years ago, the Industry Training Act introduced machinery to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained men ensure the quality of training and to distribute more evenly the cost of training. Industrial training and manpower services have been completely reorganised with the introduction of the Manpower Services Commission and its two offshoots, the Employment Services Agency and the Training Services Agency. It seems to me that the State will have to become more involved than before in the apprenticeship system. In the past the employers and trade unions have been left to sort out the problems surrounding the employment of young people.
Many of us welcomed the introduction of the Engineering Industry Training Board and the Construction Industry Training Board special award schemes for young apprentices. But the number of young people who have applied for awards and who have been turned away is considerable. Many of those young people had adequate qualifications. It was simply the fact that there were not enough training awards available.
I suggest that there is a special problem facing many small firms throughout the country. At the moment they cannot or will not take on young people as apprentices, yet they probably consider that business prospects will pick up in a year or two. In the meantime, we shall have an increase in the problems created by shortages of skilled labour in certain areas.
The industry training boards, through the Training Services Agency, could perform a valuable role by extending the concept of the training awards scheme. I go further and suggest that it ought to be responsible for the apprentice throughout his or her apprenticeship and that the employer's role should be largely one of fostering the apprentice during his or her period in the firm. This would have the advantage of providing more apprenticeships opportunities than would be the case if we continued to leave matters to the recruitment policies of individual companies.
Tomorrow and Wednesday we shall be debating the White Paper on Public Expenditure. One of the central aims of the White Paper is stated to be that of improving the manufacturing performance of the United Kingdom. It seems that the flow of skilled labour to the right places at the right time will be crucial to the success of that objective. In a previous debate on employment I expressed the view that the Department of Employment should take a firm hand in manpower planning and in the allocation of financial resources. If the opportunities in manufacturing employment are decreasing, as they have been over the past decade, it follows that the job opportunities available to young people will increasingly be in the white collar sector, whether in public enterprise or in some kind of service employment.
Schemes such as the school leavers' subsidy have helped. Incidentally, I hope that the Minister will say that the operation of this subsidy could be made a little more flexible, because there were some young people who left school before last summer who might be assisted by this scheme if it were not tied to the summer and Christmas leaving dates.
A substantial proportion of the unemployed is made up of those who worked in the construction industry. Further measures to increase the flow of work in this sector—although I know that this does not lie within the ministerial responsibility of my hon. Friend—could do a great deal to ease the employment situation.
I turn finally to two attempts which the Government have been making in the past year or two to deal with what seemed to be short-term problems. The first attempt has been job creation. The Job Creation Scheme was seen as a short-term arrangement, although I think it will be with us for a long time to come. We borrowed it from the Canadian Local Initiative programme, and it seems that it will form a fairly permanent part of our employment situation.
The difficulty that often arises is finding suitable sponsors. Local authorities and other public agencies often promote schemes, but there are voluntary bodies which do not know how to handle the Job Creation Scheme. I suggest that the


scheme should be handled by a Job Creation Agency, the officials being assisted by people who are qualified to assist and sponsor projects centrally. I do not want to see a lot of people employed at the top when the real urgency is to get more young people into employment, albeit employment of a temporary character. It seems that there would be some value in changing the function of the Job Creation Scheme to make it a Job Creation Agency.
The Community Industry Scheme operates on a smaller scale, but I believe it performs a valuable rôle in assisting many young people who would otherwise have had great difficulty in finding employment. I am led to believe that there are placing difficulties arising for girls after they have finished their spell of employment under the scheme. The girls are involved in home visits, lunch clubs, or some type of domestic employment. Very often the boys get the opportunity to exercise skills in, for example, joinery, painting or brick work. The time spent on such skills is not always recognised in subsequent employment, unlike the old pre-apprenticeship scheme.
I hope that the Minister will raise this matter through the TUC and with the individual trade unions. Some form of assessment should be introduced by the Training Services Agency so that recognition is given to the period spent by young people under the Community Industry Scheme or the Job Creation Scheme.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic in the foreseeable future towards representations from the Strathclyde Regional Education Authority for an increase in the number of places in Strathclyde. He will realise that one of the important aspects of community industry has been the contact between the trainers and the students. It seems that one of the problems emerging from apprenticeships is the lack of interest shown in the young people and their employment and training. This may be an admission of old age, but I think that in times past journeymen often showed much more interest in the training and work of apprentices than is now the case.
I have referred to some of the problems facing the unemployed school leaver. The fact remains that the great

majority of young people find employment when they leave school. In recent years we have seen an increase in the number of bodies which have responsibility for counselling them as to the type of work that they might be best fitted to undertake. The result has sometimes been more people chasing around helping young people to find suitable jobs, or jobs that they might be best qualified to do, than there are jobs available.
I have no doubt that if this country were fighting a war we should have the kind of manpower policies required, that we would be employing everyone in the right place and at the right time and ensuring proper training. I have suggested that the United Kingdom at present is in an economic war situation where it will be of the utmost importance to ensure that the young people coming out of our schools and colleges are able to obtain employment of the right kind and are, through the various agencies, encouraged to take the proper kind of training.

12.46 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): This subject is one well worth considering at any hour and it concerns us very much. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there is a great deal of concern about the un-precedently high level of unemployment among young people, not only here but in other industrialised countries. It reached its peak after the school-leaving period last summer. It has gone down rapidly since, except for a jump in January, mainly due to school-leaving in Scotland, and the downward trend in unemployment among school-leavers continued in February. But the concern is justifiable and understandable, and we are worried about the corrosive effects which unemployment has, particularly among young people. I always think that if they are unemployed for a long time, we shall feel the effects not just for a year ahead but for many years in terms of social consequences.
We have taken a number of measures to deal with the situation, and Government action has been built around three main aims. The first is to obtain permanent employment for as many young people as possible, and to that end we have strengthened the front line


staff of the careers services by up to 200 places, and introduced the recruitment subsidy for school-leavers and extended it in January to deal with the Christmas school-leavers. I note what my hon. Friend said about that. We are keeping it under review.
The second aim is to sustain the level of training opportunities, because these opportunities are, of course, at risk during a period of recession. Through the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency we have given special help for training at craft and semi-skilled levels to ensure the future supply of craftsmen through the apprenticeship system. To ensure their availability when the economy recovers is one of the major objects of special assistance. The amount of money given is impressive—£50 million announced in the Budget speech, another £10 million on 24th July last year, another £20 million on 24th September, and £55 million on 12th February, to take effect from August; £45 million of that will be devoted to additional first-year apprenticeship training and the remainder to other forms of training.
For the early months of 1976 in Scotland I have some figures. Under the training awards scheme, 453 people are already in training and another 270 places are to start early this year. For premium grants at craft level there are 354 places, with 428 for those other than craft level. There are 476 places in selected employer schemes and 264 in critical-skill grant schemes. That is a total of 2,245 under these schemes in Scotland.
For the longer term, we look to the industrial training boards to consider the issues, since they are best placed to assess their industries' needs, and it is not possible to take training out of the hands of industry. A lot of it has to continue to be done there. The Government and the MSC are also considering a wide range of comments on the TSA's discussion paper on vocational preparation for young people where they have been addressed to the sort of consideration mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The third aim, apart from training and strengthening the careers services and providing the recruitment subsidy, is to provide purposeful temporary work

opportunities in the community. This has been achieved through the job creation programme operated by the Manpower Services Commission and by expanding Community Industry, which is financed by my Department. We now have 4,000 places in Community Industry.
My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulty about apprenticeships in small firms. I share his concern as somebody who represents a South London constituency with a good deal of unemployment where there are not many large firms left. Something can be done by group training schemes which can be fostered by the Industrial Training Board. We can make greater use of sponsoring, and we are anxious to ensure that opportunities become available for training, whether there are large firms or small firms in the area.
Much of the effort must be made in industry, or otherwise we shall undermine the amount of training which industry does for itself. However, I agree that we must maintain the effort. This country must have more brains, more talent and more status in industry and manufacturing. For far too long we have suffered from a snobbery about the jobs which young people go into. According to people who work in industry, if they had more talent and more status, this country would be better off. That is one reason why we are devoting so much more to industrial training.
My hon. Friend commented on the job creation project and suggested that the Manpower Services Commission should act as agent rather than simply as the supplier of the money. Job creation area teams are prepared to give whatever help they can to potential sponsors to design and mount projects. A project adviser is attached to each team and his function is to visit sponsors and to help them in whatever way he can. The Commission is reviewing the arrangements for promoting job creation and in areas of high unemployment which have not responded to the job creation programme will make special efforts to encourage projects.
I can give examples of the sort of private initiatives which have been taken. If my hon. Friend would like to discuss the question of the job creation project


with somebody at the Commission, it should be possible to arrange it.

Mr. Craigen: I have had discussions with the manager of the Glasgow office of the Job Creation Scheme, and I am familiar with many of the projects which have been undertaken, but the services of a job creation agency should be available to sponsors of projects in addition to what other public or voluntary bodies might do.

Mr. Fraser: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but one wishes to help projects which serve a local community. I shall convey my hon. Friend's remarks to the Manpower Services Commission. However, I find it hard to believe that there is not a private organisation, whether commercial or voluntary, which could be assisted to start a scheme. There must be many private organisations, such as the National Trust, Liverpool Cathedral—whether the Protestant or Catholic one I know not—the Royal British Legion, ICI, the National Society for Autistic Children, the Dundee Council of Churches, Community Service Volunteers and Oxfam, which, with help and encouragement, could be assisted to mount a scheme. Nevertheless, I do not reject what my hon. Friend says.
My hon. Friend suggested that the Job Creation Scheme should be permanent. The Manpower Services Commission is reviewing the labour market effects of the job creation programme to see which groups can be helped best. I was grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about Community Industry. It has done a splendid job helping youngsters who find it difficult to obtain or retain employment.
My hon. Friend said that there was more difficulty in placing girls from CI than boys. One of the reasons we now have a Sex Discrimination Act is to deal

with the narrow range of job opportunities for girls. Special efforts are made by careers officers to place girls in a wider range of jobs and the TSA has recently published a report identifying women as a priority group in terms of promoting training opportunities.
Girls from CI are generally more successful in obtaining semi-skilled industrial jobs than clerical jobs, but this is often caused by lack of formal educational qualifications. Interesting and encouraging experiments have taken place in the CI unit in Dunfermline where girls from CI can be accepted for nurse training with relevant CI experience substituted for entry qualifications.
My hon. Friend suggested that time with CI might count as a substitute for apprentice training, but it is very difficult to link these matters. Apprenticeships carry particular curricula and training courses. But we have tried to provide opportunities for people coming out of CI to go on shorter industrial courses under the TSA if they are aged under 19. About 12 per cent. of CI trainees go into apprenticeships, which is a very encouraging figure, bearing in mind the difficulties these young people have had before going into CI. There are also those under 19 who go into shorter junior TOPS courses and those over 19 who continue training in skillcentres.
There is still a great challenge in providing training for young people and we have to recognise that there is an inequity in this country between the amount—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to One o'clock.